So now our problem with global warming is what isn’t seen?
I swear, you can’t make this stuff up:
WASHINGTON – Pollution before the first Earth Day was not only visible, it was in your face: Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire. An oil spill fouled 30 miles of Southern California beaches. And thick smog choked many cities’ skies.
On Thursday, 40 years after that first Earth Day in 1970, smog levels nationwide have dropped by about a quarter, and lead levels in the air are down more than 90 percent. Formerly fetid lakes and burning rivers are now open to swimmers.
The challenges to the planet today are largely invisible â€” and therefore tougher to tackle.
“To suggest that we’ve made progress is not to say the problem is over,” said William Ruckelshaus, who in 1970 became the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency. “What we’ve done is shift from the very visible kinds of issues to those that are a lot more subtle today.”
Issues such as climate change are less obvious to the naked eye. Since the first Earth Day, carbon dioxide levels in the air have increased by 19 percent, pushing the average annual world temperature up about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
So, after America rightly cleaned up its rivers and reduced the amount of smog in the air, the busybodies have turned their attention to the marginal, i.e., worrying about carbon emissions. And, as sure as night follows day, trying to fight invisible pollutants is a much tougher task than cleaning the river.
However, I have a question: what does a polluted river have to do with global warming? The reporter goes from talking about a polluted river to giving stats about the weather:
Last month was the hottest March on record worldwide. It was 1.4 degrees warmer than March 1970, according to NOAA.
The average temperatures for the last 40 years are higher than the rest of the 130 years of record-keeping, said Deke Arndt, head of climate monitoring at NOAA’s National Climate Data Center.
And, this week, German scientists published an analysis in the scientific journal Nature that says the greenhouse gas agreement reached by some international leaders last December in Copenhagen would lead to a 10 to 20 percent increase in carbon dioxide levels in 2020.
That puts “in dire peril” chances for limiting the effects of warming, the researchers said.
You’re not told how a polluted river contributes to global warming, but the reporter attempts to lead you in that direction by making an inference that polluted rivers contribute to global warming. On top of this, there is no mention of the Climategate scandal or the myriads of errors in the IPCC report upon which a lot of the global warming hypothesis is based. I’m not surprised: the mainstream media has invested a great deal in perpetuating the fraud that is global warming and they are not about to let the facts come out on this. So, here’s to looking out there in the bright blue sky and wondering if all those “invisible” particles that help us breath are actually contributing to global warming (or maybe it’s the dried up Salt River that is. Who knows these days?).