Written June 15, 2009     
 

mtMorris Email Columns

writers on the loose - write your own columns
Write your own column!

LONSBERRY POLL
Do you believe in manmade global warming?
Yes
No



Signed copy?
Leave info here:

Check out my line of patriotic, Second Amendment and faith-based T-shirts


The New Media Journal


Office Daily


The Scott Pitoniak column


Help the children of slain firefighter and police officer Mike Chiapperini


Custom Search


© 2014 Bob Lonsberry

 
 
WHAT I WROTE IN 2000

receive columns by email
I don't believe it.

I'm not sure why. But it just doesn't ring true.

This whole global warming thing.

I don't believe it is real, I don't believe it is a threat, I don't believe it is manmade.

I believe we live in a large world where man is the creature, not the creator. I think this world was shaped for us, not by us, and that we are no more capable of destroying it than we were of making it.

I bring this up because of a big United Nations report that is coming out. A bunch of U.N. scientists has put together a study that claims the world's temperatures will be 10 degrees warmer at the end of this century than they are at the beginning.

That's 40 percent warmer than their projections from just five years ago.

So they think we're going to heck in a handbag.

And I think they're wrong.

I think their report is much more about politics than it is science. I think it's about the economy, not the environment. I think they're more interested in dollars than they are in climate change.

Actually, I think the entire global warming thing is a con intended to tear down the technological and economic advantage of the United States. It is a weapon being used against us, to get us to handicap our industry, prosperity and lifestyle.

And I'm not buying it.

Because the climate is not static. It is constantly in a state of change. I thought we learned that in ninth-grade Earth Science class. That's why we have glacier striations in New York and seashells in the Rockies. What's up was once down and what's down was once up. The dry places were wet and the wet places were dry and where it snows now there used to be jungles.

And back and forth for thousands of years the ice sheets have expanded and contracted as the environment warmed and cooled, driven by forces we cannot begin to understand. Driven by forces we cannot begin to influence.

Here's an example.

Last week in one of the big city newspapers there was an interesting story about this glacier in Scandanavia somethere. A massive glacier. And it's breaking apart. It's retreated three miles in the last several decades and this scientist guy says that sometime in the future it will just go away. It will disintegrate.

Which gets your attention. When the glaciers start melting you figure things are in bad shape.

But there's more to this story. The glacier in question is only 300 years old. Which is pretty old for a human or guinea pig or a ham sandwich, but in the terms of earth things, it's pretty young.

In fact, in a valley through which the glacier passes, humans used to carry on advanced agriculture. It was a farm region. There were villages and barns and homes.

Within historic time it was habitable and temperate. But the climate changed. And the glacier came, clearly as a result of natural processes and weather fluctuations.

So why should its disappearance be any different? Why should a return to the historically normal condition for the valley -- no glacier -- be cause for alarm?

And why should temperature variations -- up or down, if they in fact exist -- be considered proof of human harm? Why would these not simply be meteorological phenomenon we are observing? What evidence points to human fault for something which may be nothing more than the natural decline of a minor ice age?

The oceans have risen and fallen more times than we have the ability to detect. Why is it that this prediction of ocean rise -- which has not yet even begun to occur -- be cause for either alarm or the restructuring of the economic order?

Well, there is no logical reason.

And I reject the premise. I don't believe there is man-made global warming.

In part because of the clear political agenda of its proponents.

It is clear that global warming -- and its reputed remedies -- are in the bailiwick of the socialist left, promoted with the same vigor and by the same people as women's rights and gay rights and trade unionism and animal rights.

And, coincidentally, the solutions they offer -- fewer personal automobiles, higher energy taxes, a debasement of industry, restrictions on electricity generation, centralized government planning, collective farming, mandatory mass transit, and restrictions on land usage, development and sprawl -- are exactly the things the people of the left have advocated for years.

I think it's a con.

I think nature or nature's God controls the weather. Daily and climatically.

I think we are little ants on a big blue marble. I think the global warming people are trying to slick us.

I think we ought to tell them to drop dead.


- by Bob Lonsberry © 2009

   
        
   
 
    

Date Title Comments
Dec 12 CAN WARREN ADMINISTRATION BE SAVED? 54
Dec 11 SUCCESS IS WHAT ROCHESTER DOES 25
Dec 10 MEN AND WOMEN OF CIA ARE AMERICAN HEROES 54
Dec 9 LAWYERS SHOULD EXPLAIN, DEFEND OUR SYSTEM 2
Dec 9 LAWYERS SHOULD EXPLAIN, DEFEND OUR SYSTEM 26
Dec 8 ORGANIZE A PRO-POLICE RALLY 63
Dec 6 HOW THE GOOD GUYS CAME TO LOSE 275
Dec 4 COME MARCH TO SUPPORT THE POLICE 53
Dec 3 FERGUSON REACTION WAS LARGELY CALM 30
Dec 2 LET'S GO FOR A WALK 88
Dec 1 MAYOR NEEDS TO MAKE PEACE WITH PIERSONS 63
Nov 27 ROCHESTER'S FERGUSON MARCH CANCELLED 24
Nov 26 WHAT FERGUSON MEANS FOR AMERICA'S COPS 76
Nov 25 WHAT FERGUSON REALLY SAYS ABOUT AMERICA 135
Nov 24 HOW THE GOP SHOULD REACT TO OBAMA EXEC ORDERS 31
Nov 21 WE ARE SO PROUD OF BUFFALO 23
Nov 20 OBAMA TO DECLARE AMNESTY 45
Nov 19 I'M GOING BACK TO COLLEGE 52
Nov 18 THE FEAR OF FERGUSON RIOTS 45
Nov 13 A NOTE TO THE GANNETT BOSSES 57
  Previous Titles »  


      
bottom left