~~~~~~~~~~~~~><((((((((()'>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~><((((((((()'>

The New York Times' Tom Freidman recently wasted about 25 inches of that paper's precious ink on a column suggesting Global Warming might be better termed global weirding, because that's how the weather will react to earth’s increasing temperature. It's a decent but arguably overzealous point, perhaps better left to publications like this website, where copy doesn't cost a zillion dollars an inch to produce. We also don’t have a million daily readers with college educations. The problem with Freidman's column in such a publication is it ignites all sorts of buzz that deflects reader attention from the core issue: the endless assault on the planet's resources that’s causing global warming in the first place.

All Freidman’s column did was fester a fresh crop of hysteria responding to his histrionics. Included in this hype is this piece which cites this piece by conspiracy theorist Matt Taibbi. Note the Taibbi piece, written a year earlier in response to another Freidman column, doesn’t question the content of Freidman’s writing, it question’s Freidman’s character. Taibbi, normally a well sourced source, just illustrates what Obama quite accurately calls the professional wrestling of word smiths. Rather than add to public wisdom, it just adds to the political cacophony. Friedman, Taibbi, even NBN spend a little too much time telling you what to think without telling you to get a second opinion. These days no one source of information is enough. The days of the ditto heads are done, despite what Rush Limbaugh wants you to believe.

When my father insisted I watch Jesse Ventura's expose' on the attack on the World Trade Center, I groaned but relented. One tedious hour later I better understood the price paid pursuing a professional wrestling career. However, when Ventura followed up that rant with a segment on Global Warming conspiracy, it got me thinking: How do we really know the earth is warming? We've got these politicians in the Maldives holding underwater cabinet meetings in the Indian Ocean. But that's half a world away. We've got endless reports the ice sheets are melting, but not in anyone's backyard. NASA  says the past decade is the warmest on record, then it comes out that air conditioners and incinerators are throwing off the agency's thermometers. Winter still feels as cold as ever, Washington's under record snow cover and we've got scientists spinning their Global Warming studies to support their grant applications. How does that translate into pending ecological doom?

We might pick up a clue or two looking at some less glaring headlines. While the powers that be are convincing the public that global warming is a hoax, there's reason to think they may also be hedging their own bets in the world of business. Three years ago, the online version of the SF Chronicle noted those in the know are starting to take Global Warming seriously. Late last month the SEC made clear its stand on the subject. Even as dueling headlines leave average readers in a quandary, it seems there's a sense growing among those who aren't to make decisions based on "The Body's"  advice, that Global Warming is happening.

Here's a piece about low-lying nation's making plans to govern while their country's underwater. That is until such time as sea levels drop again. Now that's looking ahead! Look at this NY Times piece about law suits filed by resident's of those low lying nations. Is Big Oil going to the next “Big Tobacco”, brought down by those paying the ultimate price for their profits? Maybe that explains the SEC action linked above. A little closer to home, we have the community of Oak Bluffs on Martha's Vineyard talking about zoning changes to limit liabilities on that storm susceptible plain of palaces. So, who are you really going to believe when it comes to Global Warming? The guy above with the glasses or this guy here the visor?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~><((((((((()'>

Now scientists are saying tides could rise as much as 26 inches by 2050 and 6 feet by the end of the century, all due to Global Warming. The scientists come out with all kinds of fantastic figures about damage done to cities and coasts. All of which will now be attacked more effectively than ever by global warming skeptics reinvigorated by the email scandal last fall. Totally missed  in this debate is the fact that we don't need to burn all these greenhouse gases. This argument shouldn't just be about global warming,. It should focus equally on how easily we can reduce our carbon footprints without dramatically reducing our living standards. In the meantime, if reduce reduce global warming or sea level increases, great. But relying only ofnthe Chicken Little approach of decrying dramatic tidal increases, meteorological chaos, and global ecological mayhem isn't going to work in a world ruled by economics. Let's face it, civilization was founded on economics not environmentalism. We're not going to protect the environment unless there are jobs in it. Not unless people start dying from global warming. A lot of people. Beside, if the Biblical calamities forecast above really in the works ,we're screwed anyway. Let's hope like heck Global Warming theory is dead wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~><((((((((()'>