When I got out of the Army in 1972 I was a ranger in Glacier National Park -- and the park is, as any of you who have visited it know -- just a spectacular place. The jagged, sheer-faced mountains and deep "U" shaped valleys are classic (in a geologic sense) examples of glaciation.
In 1972, the park's 52 glaciers were receding and we were told by park scientists that this was because they had been melting ever since the last ice age and that, in fact, it was only one of many different warm and cool periods in the past. Further, that the melting glaciers of Glacier were, in fact, just the last remnants of that "last" ice age and would likely be gone "in about 50 years." For those of you quick mathemeticians, that would be about 2020.
When I returned to work in Glacier in 1994, the glaciers were still melting and the numbers were 30-some remaining. The park scientists then said it was due to "global climate change" and that it appeared the glaciers would all be gone in "about 30 years...." Now, there are 27 glaciers remaining and the scientists say"... if the current greenhouse warming continues, all the glaciers in the park will be gone by 2030." Moreover, the "current greenhouse warming" was a result of human-kind's activities, including coal-fired generating plants and vehicle emissionsin the developed countries of the worldthat "produced greenhouse gases."
Now, what is interesting to me about all of this is that the story has changed from one of being a natural part of the earth's cycle of warming and cooling to the result of Waldo's $178 investment in Arkansas and the car he hauled it home in (sorry Waldo -- couldn't resist
)
I think once something becomes "partisan" you have to look beyond the arguments presented and try to find out both whose ox is gored and who stands to benefit. "Global climate change"has now become "partisan" in that our two major parties have different views on the issue which will lead to, in my view, radical different ways of addressing the "problem."
And just what exactly is the "problem" is part of the real issue. The amount of money involved and who stands to gain/lose in whether this is "natural" or "man-made" is pretty staggering.
I think those who really are interested inlearning about the facts,need to look at all aspects of the global climate change issue, not just the facts as presented by one side or the other (and with respect, Al Gore's movie is just "one side" and is not completely factually accurate). Having said that, I'd be as sceptical of any adverts by Exxon or BP since they have a vested interest. On the other hand, if you get your "news" from the Comedy channel or from Bono or some other celebrity, they have a vested interest too! Just try this one experiment: next time you see the issue look to see if the issue is presented as "global climate change"or presented as "global warming." Then, note the issues presented and the tone of the report.
I'll just end this with my stock answerI give those who ask mewhy I'm planting grapes in Missoula -- "I'm just trying to be ready for global warming!"
In 1972, the park's 52 glaciers were receding and we were told by park scientists that this was because they had been melting ever since the last ice age and that, in fact, it was only one of many different warm and cool periods in the past. Further, that the melting glaciers of Glacier were, in fact, just the last remnants of that "last" ice age and would likely be gone "in about 50 years." For those of you quick mathemeticians, that would be about 2020.
When I returned to work in Glacier in 1994, the glaciers were still melting and the numbers were 30-some remaining. The park scientists then said it was due to "global climate change" and that it appeared the glaciers would all be gone in "about 30 years...." Now, there are 27 glaciers remaining and the scientists say"... if the current greenhouse warming continues, all the glaciers in the park will be gone by 2030." Moreover, the "current greenhouse warming" was a result of human-kind's activities, including coal-fired generating plants and vehicle emissionsin the developed countries of the worldthat "produced greenhouse gases."
Now, what is interesting to me about all of this is that the story has changed from one of being a natural part of the earth's cycle of warming and cooling to the result of Waldo's $178 investment in Arkansas and the car he hauled it home in (sorry Waldo -- couldn't resist
I think once something becomes "partisan" you have to look beyond the arguments presented and try to find out both whose ox is gored and who stands to benefit. "Global climate change"has now become "partisan" in that our two major parties have different views on the issue which will lead to, in my view, radical different ways of addressing the "problem."
And just what exactly is the "problem" is part of the real issue. The amount of money involved and who stands to gain/lose in whether this is "natural" or "man-made" is pretty staggering.
I think those who really are interested inlearning about the facts,need to look at all aspects of the global climate change issue, not just the facts as presented by one side or the other (and with respect, Al Gore's movie is just "one side" and is not completely factually accurate). Having said that, I'd be as sceptical of any adverts by Exxon or BP since they have a vested interest. On the other hand, if you get your "news" from the Comedy channel or from Bono or some other celebrity, they have a vested interest too! Just try this one experiment: next time you see the issue look to see if the issue is presented as "global climate change"or presented as "global warming." Then, note the issues presented and the tone of the report.
I'll just end this with my stock answerI give those who ask mewhy I'm planting grapes in Missoula -- "I'm just trying to be ready for global warming!"
