Exposing the global warming racket?
An op-ed piece published today by associate editor Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review sets forth to set us all straight on what he unfortunately terms as "The global warming racket", as if there is some organized and insidious movement afoot to deceive and scare us into submission. And, of course, he then describes anyone concerned with the issue of global warming as an alarmist.
Frankly, it's more of the same tired old arguments found from most of those that would wish to consider themselves as "informed" skeptics - invoking Al Gore (boo, scary) and the natural cycles of climate and nature - that is absolutely nothing new to anyone that actually does try to stay informed. While perhaps slightly better written than some of the comments we "alarmists" receive (Bill at least knows how to use a spell-checker), it is certainly not news nor a very strong argument against reasoned concern for our environment and climate change.
Unfortunately, Mr. Steigerwald doesn't seem to realize this as he claims to be "exposing" something. My apologies, sir, but you aren't, and you contribute nothing to a serious debate about the very real issues of climate change and global warming.
You may want to start off by reading the latest summary report from the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (please don't rely on Al Gore for assessing the consensus or lack thereof regarding global warming and its primary causes and processes). Your tone is no better than those you accuse as alarmists, and is probably worse. You do more to confuse whom you rather unfortunately term as "scientifically challenged" and contribute nothing in the way of reasoned debate. You aren't the only one, and there are plenty of people on "the other side" that do not engender reasoned debate either. That is no excuse for your snide tone and complete dismissal of the efficacy of the debate.
We can talk of natural cycles and receding glaciers (forgetting for the moment that you completely fail to mention the rate of change in melting ice, receding glaciers, atmospheric CO2 levels, etc.); we can claim that these natural cycles are the sole source of any climate change we might face; we can claim that the billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere, the altering of Earth's surface on a grand scale - the whole engine of modern civilization - has absolutely no effect on these natural cycles that in the same breath you state are "little understood". If that is what you truly believe, then I can do nothing to change that. If you are willing to bet the future of your children and grandchildren on the notion that we bear no responsibility to face the issue head-on and accept the possibility that a natural cycle is no longer such when altered by the inputs from modern civilization, then so be it.
What I seek is a reasoned debate from truly informed people or from people seeking information with an open mind. I completely reject the label "alarmist" for it is you, sir, that is the alarmist. I do not seek to steal from anyone a bright, prosperous, and happy future. But I do not assume that it will come simple because we wish it so. There are consequences to any action, and we ignore this basic principal at our peril.
You have found no racket and have exposed nothing.