CNN writes with all earnestness that people should travel to see the following five destinations before they disappear as a result of global warming: Great Barrier Reef, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Colorado, Alpine Glaciers, Switzerland, and Amazon rain forest, Brazil.
How exactly does one get to these destinations without expending the very gasses that the eco-leftist believe causes global warming (COx)? Carbon trading schemes don't cut it either. Isn't it destructive to contemplate visiting such locales (eco-footprint)? Shouldn't one avoid extraneous travel if they want to save the planet?
Seriously, there are plenty of reasons to go visit these locations because of their stunning beauty, but the global warming rationale is wearing thin. Reports suggest that rain forests are rebounding nicely because more people are giving up subsistence living by slash and burn farming, which is allowing jungles to retake the former farmlands. Reefs and glaciers are transient in nature, and bug infestations are likewise natural phenomenon.
After all, it wasn't all that long ago in the Earth's history that New York City (and most of North America) was buried beneath a huge glacier. Glacial deposits can be found all over New York. And that followed a period when much of what is now North America was a shallow sea teeming with all manner of sea life, including reefs.
Part of the beauty of the world is that it is always changing. It's why going to many of these places is worthwhile - they never appear the same way twice. These kinds of reports play on the notion that there was some ideal temperature profile for the planet and that we're heading towards disaster, even though the history of the planet shows that it is forever changing - swinging like a pendulum between periods of cold and warmth.
No comments:
Post a Comment