Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Put global warming in the fridge

By
February 8, 2007

By REG HENRY

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Do you know what bugs me? The fact that the liberal media always refuse to print the opposite side of controversies due to political bias. Consider the state of our planet.

Many scientists have come out with a completely one-sided report that pretends everybody is in agreement with their theory, a theory that is based not on science but political motives. The way they tell it, you would think that no controversy exists at all.

That is garbage. Brave, knowledgeable voices are raised in dissent but the scientific snobs and know-it-alls in the media ignore them. With their superior noses raised in the air, they deny what common sense tells us all every day — that the world is flat.

Have they ever looked up at the moon? It’s a great flat dish in the sky. A cow couldn’t jump over it if it were a globe — its width would mean it would straddle the moon and get its udder snagged. The smallest child knows this.

Don’t tell me that Christopher Columbus proved that the world is round. He just proved that the Italians are wonderful people. It wasn’t because it was flat that he didn’t fall off the Earth — America was still on the flat part, that’s all.

Don’t tell me about satellites. The government censors the pictures of the real underside of the Earth, which is all dirt, rocks and roots and looks like the site for a coming Wal-Mart, which, of course, it may be.

Only Thomas Friedman of The New York Times dared to speak the truth in his famous book “The World Is Flat.” Thank you, Tommy. Even if your America-hating bosses at the Times despise you for your courage, we flat-earthers applaud you!

But get this: A bunch of kooks in white jackets recently released another report that said our flat Earth is the subject of “global warming,” which, of course, is nonsense because our Earth is not a globe. It may be a little warmer overall on our flat planet but climate change goes in cycles because the weather was invented by the Almighty to give people something to talk about.

The report was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is supposed to impress us. Now, if this panel were headquartered in a spot called Bob’s Barber Shop and bore its name — Bob’s Hair and Global Emissions Cut — it might impress us a whole lot more because such gathering places are populated by real people who know a thing or two about life and perhaps even studied chemistry in high school.

Instead, we have to defer to “experts.” I don’t know about you but I hate “experts.” I hate them because they know so much and have so much darn expertise.

I find that “experts” are better avoided. If a doctor should tell me that I am overweight and should go on a diet and quit drinking, well, I merely tell him to write me a prescription for a cheeseburger and a cold one because what does he know with all his years spent in medical school? It’s my body and I know better than any doctor, just as I know better about my planet than any climatologist.

Fortunately, the report came out in the middle of our current cold spell, which gave every cartoonist a cartoon about global warming in the deep freeze. How we all laughed! Of course, if the report had come out earlier last month, when it was so warm the buds were coming out, it wouldn’t have seemed so hilarious.

Fortunately, our nation’s talk show hosts have raised their voices on behalf of the people’s right not to believe in “experts.”

Who would any sensible ordinary person believe? A talk show host or a couple of thousand climate change scientists from 113 countries? A talk show host or the best scientific minds in the world? Hmmm. It’s a hard one!

Why, a talk show host, of course! Just the other day, Rush Limbaugh observed that “there’s very little science associated with all this … it’s all politics.”

It’s a shame more of us in the print media haven’t told our readers that these scientists are all socialists who want us to eat granola for breakfast and melt down our guns and cars to make giant thermometers. We don’t have to look at climate data; we just have to know that pointy heads are saying something that fans our prejudices and gets our knees a-jerking.

Hurrah for us! Pass the sunscreen and, if on the coast, the inflatable life vest and let us contemplate this goodly flat frame, the Earth.

(Reg Henry is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. E-mail rhenry(at)post-gazette.com.)

19 Responses to Put global warming in the fridge

  1. Calico_jack

    February 8, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Yeah it’s satire folks, but what is really sad is that I had to get through several lines before it sunk in…far too many people make arguments that sound just like this for real.

  2. ron kay

    February 8, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    …….liberal media ?!?!? What the hell, Reggie……good right wing lap dog, Reggie…..lay down. stay. good dog.

    where’s Osama asshole. ?!?!?

  3. jim bobb

    February 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Ray, I don’t think they read far enough to “get it”. Maybe they were too disturbed by Nancy Pelosi’s jet where gay marriage will be performed and stem cells will be served for snacks instead of caviar.

  4. Ed Wood

    February 8, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    About halfway through this piece, I realized Reggie was satirizing those who attempt to deny that climate change is taking place. After I regained my composure, I laughed all the way to the end. Great job, Reggie. Now you are going to have to publish an article defining and explaining satire, for the Limbaughs and Cheneys out there. Good luck.

  5. Carl Nemo

    February 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    I thought I’d provide some links for folks that might interested in some serious science concerning global warming and cooling cycles. In the short term the sun has a far greater effect on this process than the greenhouse effect as a function of trapped CO2 in the atmosphere. The earths oceans have a tremendous capacity to absorb CO2 into it’s structure. In addition vulcanism accounts for the majority of the greenhouse gas effect along with eruption ejecta that cause these cycles. Of course civilization’s impact on this process will skew the timing of the cycles to some degree, but rest assured it’s our Sun that controls our climatology. It too has cycles as everything else in nature. The earth experienced a very warm period from the 10th to the 14th century and then went into a cooling period from the 14th to the mid 19th centuries. The climate is getting warmer but is due to peak by the mid 23rd century when the sun’s output will start to decrease causing an overall global cooling. There seems to be a dominant 400 year cycle as a function of the solar output imbedded within the grand Milankovitch cycle which is linked to earths wobble which takes place in about 26,000 years also known as the precession of the equinoxes. The angle of the earth’s seasonal tilt to the sun can vary as much as 21.5 to 24.5 degrees throughout this cycle with the tilt of the earths axis at 23.44 degrees representing an extreme tilt towards the sun as it moves about the sun within it’s annual orbit. It’s the Milankovitch cycle that seems to determine the occurrence of major ice ages while there are much smaller nestings or cycles within this period linked to solar output that determine their frequency and peaks. Rest assured that civilization’s output of greenhouse gases does have an effect but will only act to skew the peaks of the major maxima and minima of the these cycles. As earth’s climate gets much warmer we are headed for the occurrence of the next major 400 year cooling period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle

    http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

  6. Wobba

    February 8, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    It never ceases to amaze (and depress) me that such a large portion of those who comment on these things are idiots. Case in point, the people who didn’t (and still don’t) realize that this is satire. What’s even sadder is that some of these morons are the ones who are on the side of science. If all the morons were relegated to the flat earth side of the “debate” I could live with it. Guess you don’t have to be smart to be right.

  7. RLewis

    February 9, 2007 at 2:39 am

    After about 8 paragraphs, when I finally ‘got it’, I started smiling at the author’s wit. Thanks for the chuckles! What amazes me, is the responses by some others- whether they ‘got it’ or not.

    My position on global warming is sort of the same as I’ve heard some preachers say when they are trying to convince an atheist of the error of his thinking…… it’s simply, suppose I’m right?

    And, would we or would we not benefit from cleaner air? Why must supposedly intelligent adults complicate every subject? Let’s quit supporting the Oil Cartel & spend our tax dollars on creating an environment that is healthier as well as progressive. And, just think… no more preemptive wars… we won’t need Arab countries oil.

    IMHO, Keep it simple, stupid.

  8. Mary

    February 9, 2007 at 5:26 am

    Geez, I can’t believe some still think we humans have nothing to with global warming! Yes, it is true that earth has gone through many climate changes in the past. Climate changes may have wiped out many species of life, and they probably didn’t do anything to cause it. IT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT WE HUMANS ARE CAUSING CHANGES! Those species that parished may have not been smart enough to do something about it. It appears some of us aren’t either.

  9. Mary

    February 9, 2007 at 5:29 am

    PS I am taking about some of the responses to the article, not what the author wrote…I do realize the satire in the article….

  10. Ray

    February 10, 2007 at 6:00 am

    I got some beachfront lots coming up for sale at the top of the world, really cheap for those who get in now. Send your deposits of $100,000 to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh bye the way, any donation in the way of war machinery that you no longer have use for, would be appreciated.

  11. Peter from Sth Australia

    February 8, 2007 at 5:39 am

    Are you sure Reg Henry wrote this? Sounds much more like Senator Imhofe, George W Bush’s former environmental chief opinion leader, or Australia’s industry minister Ian Macfarlane – he said Al Gore’s film was “just entertainment”. Now if only the other 160 countries who ratified the Kyoto Protocol had men like this to keep us falling for the socialist propaganda of scientific experts and would join Australia and America in “we luv CO2 and big cars” corner!!

  12. Moji

    February 8, 2007 at 7:05 am

    Wow, someone else actually speaking and their mind putting it in print and acutally disagrees with the so-called experts…bravo…but then since scientists base everything on provable fact and speculation they cannot believe in a higher being or a possibility the earth just may be flat/round or go through weather cycles itself.

  13. paolo

    February 8, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Actually, there are many excellent scientists who dispute the global warming theory.

    There are some problems with the theory. First of all, there is a lack of long-term data. A long-term climate change theory requires long-term data, which is not available: we have satellite-based data for the past several decades, but none before that. Although several decades may seem like a long time, it is a drop in the proverbial bucket when put in the context of global climate fluctuation.

    We know that the globe has gone through phases when it was generally much cooler than it is now, and phases when it was much hotter than it is now. None of those phases had anything to do, of course, with human action. Even if there is a trend to global warming, it is questionable whether this can be attributed to human activity. One has to realize, first off, that the global climate system is truly gigantic; man’s puny efforts may not have any effect whatsoever on global climate.

    The question is: do we slam the brakes on human economic development, based on a highly tenuous theory of man-caused climate change? That would simply not be logical.

    Paleontologists have concluded the earth has gone through warm phases in which the polar ice caps melted entirely, and cold phases when ice sheets extended far into the continental US. All this, with no human causation whatsoever!

  14. Jerry

    February 8, 2007 at 8:19 am

    Good to see someone standing up for our Decider-in-Chief who has decided that, basically, science is just a theory.

    Man, our Decider is one cool dude. C Average. You have to hand to to him — coulda made a C+ if he hadn’t been drunk at the time. He KNOWS stuff!

    And when a tornado touches down in Crawford, Texas (Please, O Lord, please) he’ll convince everyone that climate change is just “God helping him clear the brush.”

  15. Fred P

    February 8, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Kudos.

  16. ray

    February 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    You guys know this is satire … right?

  17. A-Man

    February 8, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Despite what Paolo says we do have a perfect snapshot of our climate over the last millenia in the form of ice cores drilled into glaciers close to the poles. Those Ice cores are a perfect record of past centuries climate and atmospheric conditions and they show that since the industrial age we have slowly been warming due to particulate matter and increased CO2, CO, Chloroflorocarbons, etc.. all deposited in the atmosphere by human actions. To call this political is preposterous since over 100 countries and thousands of scientists have weighed in on the issue. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that we are affecting our climate and this could have dire consequences for the future health of Earths fragile ecosystem. The fact of the matter is that it is much smarter to err on the side of caution when it comes to global warming, the consequences are too grave for us to be wrong. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to make the right choices now so they can live in a world that is as stable and beautiful as it is in this age, don’t let them down.

  18. Jason Shapiro

    February 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    “Do you know what bugs me? The fact that the liberal media always refuse to print the opposite side of controversies due to political bias.”

    As opposed to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other elements of the conservative media which do such an incredibly fair job of conveying opposing views and NEVER EVER let political bias enter into their reportage.

  19. larry litlux

    February 8, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    While it is appropriate to have dissenting voices, the controversy over global warming is a diversionary tactic to undermine and delay dealing with it. The science community is virtually unanimous on this, while the corporate interests keep trying to sow the seeds of doubt ala big tobacco and cancer.

    The doubts that the public has are the result of coal, oil and other interests working to confuse the issue. The writer of this article is just helping them, unwittingly or not.