Warming vs. cooling debate not over (March 12)
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
Although it has been an interesting winter — “snowmageddon” in the East and lots of nice rain and snow hereabouts — don’t expect the global-warming debate to slack off.
The global warming evangelists haven’t lost their fervent belief that the presence of humans on the planet is making the climate warmer — this time. Remember that the geological record, and even the recent printed record, show the earth has warmed and cooled before. But their point of view is that the earth would be warming more slowly if people weren’t putting so much carbon dioxide into the air.
Huge portions of the earth’s population, however, don’t buy it. The government of India, for example, isn’t about to slow the economic progress of more than a billion people to make Al Gore happy.
Some geologists aren’t too worried about global warming, but they nevertheless think we should be conserving energy and the fossil fuels that provide energy. They believe that while the earth may be warming now, it will cool again — and rather quickly — before too many more centuries. They believe the effects of cooling are likely to be harder to deal with than the effects of warming.
They believe that in a time of cooling, any fears about nuclear power would be set aside, because such energy would be needed just to keep people warm and to keep industries operating if fossil fuels were no longer as readily available as they are now.
Places like the San Joaquin Valley might have a growing season, but also might have to melt some glacial ice to provide irrigation water. Heat for that melting could only come from a plentiful and viable energy source.
Many of the world’s people would starve unless a way could be found to grow their food in greenhouses, which, again, would use energy.
It’s an interesting prospect, and likely to be raised as the debate goes on.
