Flooding here on the East Branch of the Pecatonica may set a record I've been told - this on the heels of a similar blockbuster climate event just last month. What more evidence do we need to heed the warnings of the global warming enthusiasts who have breathlessly predicted such weather catastrophes?
More severe weather events: floods, drought, sea levels rising, higher temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, impending disaster with only a 10-year (now down to 7 or 8) window of opportunity to buck the trend.
It's a struggle for me to automatically make this connection without at least looking at other possible reasons. Would all the La Nina fans please stand up?
And never mind the inconsistencies these "holy rollers" dismiss with self-righteous contempt. I attended a woodland stewardship workshop in Madison a few months back where the first two speakers, both scientists, addressed global warming issues as they relate to Wisconsin's forests.
Based on some mysterious computer models, the first determined that Wisconsin would become warmer and drier in the future. Not being a scientist, I'm willing to listen. But I wish he would have gotten together beforehand with the very next speaker whose computer modeling showed Wisconsin getting warmer and wetter!
When I asked about the discrepancy, I got a look similar to that if my lefty professor at the University of Maryland back in the 70's when I questioned his conclusion that America's wanton waste of natural resources would destroy all of our forests within 10 years (standard timeline for every environmental catastrophe, it seems).
After a brief and disdainful pause, he responds: "It's very complicated. Sometimes it will be wetter, sometimes drier depending on weather patterns."
Well, so much for long-term trends.
According to an "Outdoor Advisory" I received recently from the National Wildlife Federation, the U.S. Senate is now debating the Climate Security Act that would curb global warming pollution and put America on "the path toward a new energy future."
In addition to the billions devoted to the fight against global warming, the bill would make an extraordinary investment in wildlife conservation - to the tune of $137 billion over the life of the proposal.
The NWF missive maintains the coins would help offset the effects of invasive species, increased wildfires, rising ocean levels, extreme drought and decreased snow pact caused by global warming. Among the targets for this endeavor is the development of "survival strategies for wildlife populations."
As a conservationist, I'm all for protecting our natural resources, especially the wild creatures that make our daily lives so fascinating. And, I realize that some of the organizations I hang out with stand to profit enormously from this largesse.
But I must admit some reservations about the wisdom of trying to teach bears and bunnies how to survive during a flood. Is it possible that many of the 200 or more organizations that wrote letters in favor of the bill are riding the coattails of a social and political phenomenon that has reached a level of fervor not unlike a religious crusade?
Legions of non-profit, so-called non-partisan groups, are packing their fund-raising literature with fever-pitched warnings about the effects of climate change. A healthy contribution now will help them fight for solutions, they suggest, which typically include lobbying the state and federal legislators for more restrictive regulations and filing lawsuits against government and business entities.
These appeals, too, are rife with inconsistencies. One such appeal included the highly popular prediction that great portions of our state will soon be under water. However, a photo right next to the same passage shows decreased water levels on the Great Lakes. Very complicated, indeed.
Fossil fuels are to blame for all these problems, they argue. In response, they have fought tooth and nail against the exploration and development of additional sources of energy, leaving us with $4 gas and dependence on foreign oil.
Nuclear power plants are out, as are coal-based facilities. The eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge are off limits, even though less than one percent of ANWR has even the slightest chance of environmental degradation.
Even the most carbon-neutral alternatives, such as wind farms, have met with stiff opposition.
We all agree that conserving and protecting our resources is a high priority - going green as they say. However, let's be prudent about how we spend taxpayer dollars in this effort.
Perhaps we should all take time to come up for air, which, I note, is really nice and fresh this morning. Think I'll take a walk in the woods and enjoy the magnificent greenery as it absorbs all that nasty carbon dioxide.
- Lee Fahrney can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
More severe weather events: floods, drought, sea levels rising, higher temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, impending disaster with only a 10-year (now down to 7 or 8) window of opportunity to buck the trend.
It's a struggle for me to automatically make this connection without at least looking at other possible reasons. Would all the La Nina fans please stand up?
And never mind the inconsistencies these "holy rollers" dismiss with self-righteous contempt. I attended a woodland stewardship workshop in Madison a few months back where the first two speakers, both scientists, addressed global warming issues as they relate to Wisconsin's forests.
Based on some mysterious computer models, the first determined that Wisconsin would become warmer and drier in the future. Not being a scientist, I'm willing to listen. But I wish he would have gotten together beforehand with the very next speaker whose computer modeling showed Wisconsin getting warmer and wetter!
When I asked about the discrepancy, I got a look similar to that if my lefty professor at the University of Maryland back in the 70's when I questioned his conclusion that America's wanton waste of natural resources would destroy all of our forests within 10 years (standard timeline for every environmental catastrophe, it seems).
After a brief and disdainful pause, he responds: "It's very complicated. Sometimes it will be wetter, sometimes drier depending on weather patterns."
Well, so much for long-term trends.
According to an "Outdoor Advisory" I received recently from the National Wildlife Federation, the U.S. Senate is now debating the Climate Security Act that would curb global warming pollution and put America on "the path toward a new energy future."
In addition to the billions devoted to the fight against global warming, the bill would make an extraordinary investment in wildlife conservation - to the tune of $137 billion over the life of the proposal.
The NWF missive maintains the coins would help offset the effects of invasive species, increased wildfires, rising ocean levels, extreme drought and decreased snow pact caused by global warming. Among the targets for this endeavor is the development of "survival strategies for wildlife populations."
As a conservationist, I'm all for protecting our natural resources, especially the wild creatures that make our daily lives so fascinating. And, I realize that some of the organizations I hang out with stand to profit enormously from this largesse.
But I must admit some reservations about the wisdom of trying to teach bears and bunnies how to survive during a flood. Is it possible that many of the 200 or more organizations that wrote letters in favor of the bill are riding the coattails of a social and political phenomenon that has reached a level of fervor not unlike a religious crusade?
Legions of non-profit, so-called non-partisan groups, are packing their fund-raising literature with fever-pitched warnings about the effects of climate change. A healthy contribution now will help them fight for solutions, they suggest, which typically include lobbying the state and federal legislators for more restrictive regulations and filing lawsuits against government and business entities.
These appeals, too, are rife with inconsistencies. One such appeal included the highly popular prediction that great portions of our state will soon be under water. However, a photo right next to the same passage shows decreased water levels on the Great Lakes. Very complicated, indeed.
Fossil fuels are to blame for all these problems, they argue. In response, they have fought tooth and nail against the exploration and development of additional sources of energy, leaving us with $4 gas and dependence on foreign oil.
Nuclear power plants are out, as are coal-based facilities. The eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge are off limits, even though less than one percent of ANWR has even the slightest chance of environmental degradation.
Even the most carbon-neutral alternatives, such as wind farms, have met with stiff opposition.
We all agree that conserving and protecting our resources is a high priority - going green as they say. However, let's be prudent about how we spend taxpayer dollars in this effort.
Perhaps we should all take time to come up for air, which, I note, is really nice and fresh this morning. Think I'll take a walk in the woods and enjoy the magnificent greenery as it absorbs all that nasty carbon dioxide.
- Lee Fahrney can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
