|
Friday, February 17, 2006
Sanchez: Global warming: the other side
By Benedicto Sanchez
Nature Speaks
I GOT several rejoinder emails on a previous global warming column.
One came from my high school classmate "Brad," who's now with the UN Mission in Liberia. We're not scientists so we buttress our arguments in layperson's term.
Brad wrote if I had watched any matches of the recent Africa Cup of Nations held in Egypt. His point: "If you did, you may have noted that the coaching staff of both sides were garbed in warm coats, even in overcoats. That was in Egypt, the land of sunshine and deserts."
My reply: a quote from Marianne Calixto nee Mendoza, another classmate who now lives in Ontario, Canada, who replied to another classmate Berden who works in Manhattan, New York:
Marianne said "It's unbelievable but true...we hardly had a drop of snow up here. It's very cold but our roads are dry. I didn't even have an inkling of the snow storm (in New York) that you had yesterday until I saw it in the news this morning. They showed somebody cross country skiing at Central Park." I also got another email from a stranger whom I thought sent me a spam. (Spam, not the famous American meatloaf but unsolicited email, usually advertisements, sometimes referred to as Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE).
When I looked, the email seems legitimate enough, who echoed Brad's rejoinder. Paul Merrifield fulminated against certain shares and movers of society.
He described global warming as "Human Induced Global Warming; The Ultimate Urban Myth," as bad science and a media and cultural phenomenon that science, media, and politicians support. I'll quote some portions and save the rest for possibly a future column.
Don't trust the scientists, Merrifield said. "Eight years of university will teach you how to play the game. Anyone can join the Union of Concerned Scientists and be a voting member. I did and I'm a gardener (honest truth).
I'm not sure if that's the case, but one of these days, I'll take up his advice and see what happens. Until then, I'll reserve my comments.
"Scientists endorse global warming because they need funding and besides, politics permeates everything." Which of course bring us to politicians.
Then he castigates politicians whom he accuses of endorsing global warming "because it's an easy way to go through the motions of it looking like they have your best interests in mind."
Certainly, US President George W. Bush is not endorsing it. In fact, he's still in a state of denial. His oil interests prevent him from seeing, much less understand, global warming.
How about media? It endorses it because they are in the business of selling, not telling. Have you ever known commercial or worse, alternative media (see activists) to accentuate the negative? Of course they do and make a living off it.
Well, the British Broadcasting Corporation's has a strong advocacy on mitigating global warming. But it gets most of its funds from the British government.
The Beeb, as the Brits fondly call it, is well-known for biting the hand that feeds it. In other words, unpopular with British politicians who resent their inability to influence its editorial policies.
Then Merrifield summed his ideas: Today's debate over global warming revolves almost exclusively around the status and motives of spokespersons for opposing viewpoints, rather than the science and its limits.
I disagree as leading scientists pointed and which I quoted in the previous column. How about you, dear readers? What's your take on global warming?(r)
Comments are most welcome. Please send email to bqsanc@yahoo.com
(February 17, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
