Maybe Man IS To Blame For The Climate

I used to be a "climate denier". By that I mean I believed that climate change was real, but man's impact has been minimal to nonexistent. But that has changed.

Back in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted a temperature of 130 degrees (Fahrenheit, cause, come on, if Celsius we wouldn't be here!) This was reported as the highest temperature since 1913, when it reached 134. What has happened between 1913 and 2020?

We had an industrial revolution that pumped a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

We had reports of Global Cooling in the 1970s - the world was going into a new ice age. I know, you can't believe that - but that was what scientists reported.

We started a campaign to address the pollution. The EPA got its start. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland stopped burning. The catalytic converter became the norm in our cars.

Then around 2000, the Rev. Al Gore (Minister of Mother Earth) started showing a slide show of the dangers of Global Warming.

And in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted the highest temperature since 1913.

So what does this tell us? Man, by his pollution, brought the earth to the brink of an ice age, and by eliminating pollution, brought the earth to the brink of a worldwide Death Valley. 

Maybe man IS the reason for global climate change. 

The thing that scares me is that we have scientists telling us what we need to do to fix it. And each group has a remarkably different method. For instance, some want to "seed" clouds with reflective materials to bounce sunlight away. 

What if scientists are wrong? What if what they tell us swings us deeper into the embrace of Heat Miser - or, back to Snow Miser?  

I for one have little faith in what the scientific experts of 2020 tell us. After all, the experts DID tell us of the coming ice age in the 1970s. 

"But J.P., the scientists of today are much smarter than those in the 1970s. They have more data and know more of how things work."

Can you tell me that the scientists in 50 years aren't going to prove today's scientists wrong too?

Does man have an impact on the climate? I believe so. But can man fix it? I don't know. I'm more afraid that he will cause more damage in the process.

©Emittravel 2021

If Everything Is A Crisis . . .

What do all of these have in common?

Global Cooling
H1N1
Swine Flu
Killer Bees
Avian Flu
Y2K
SARS
Global Warming a.k.a. Man-Made Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Crisis
2012 (Mayan Calendar)
MERS
Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election

Ready? Oh, this is so easy that you're gonna kick yourself if you missed it: According to the media (and our political "leaders"), we were all GONNA DIE!!

That's right. The above list is just a sampling of the things that the media cried over. And to show just how intellectual the elite media are, they would use (and still use) a word coined in 1475 to label anyone who would not whole-hardheartedly agree with them: denier.

Today we are in the midst of a real pandemic. One not seen here in the United States since 1918. And it may actually be serious. Oh, I'm not being a "denier" of the coronavirus. Not in the least. But, I'm wondering HOW serious it might actually be. As of today, the stats are as follows:

The first case reported in the US: 1/22/2020
February 1: 8
March 1: 42 (2 deaths)
April 1: 212,747 (4,746 deaths)
April 18: 724,895 (34,178 deaths)

As an Ohioan, the first three cases were reported on 3/9/2020
April 1: 2,547 (65 deaths)
April 18: 10,222 (451 deaths)

Looking at the stats, things seem quite grim. The numbers are exponentially rising when it comes to confirmed cases and especially deaths. And yet, both President Trump and Governor DeWine (and I'm sure many others) are looking at slowly lifting the quarantines that have been slowing the spread of the disease. I can't talk about the impact upon the economy at an individual level, as my wife is a public school teacher working from home and I work in a company that supports the telecommunications industry (therefore, "essential"), so we are both working (thank you Lord). However, on the macro level, the impact has been substantial. Yet, after only about a month of quarantine (here in Ohio), is it really advisable to start lifting it? Can the hospitals handle the possible increase in cases? Do we have the supplies? Are people willing to keep their distance and wear masks? How serious is this?

Now, the media has been ever vigilant in their reporting of how terrible a job President Trump has done when it comes to this. Mainly, because he was a "denier" initially. To be honest, I don't blame him.

Please scroll back to the top and review that list.

Now, take a deep breath.

Let it out slowly.

I blame the media. It is their fault and they should be held responsible for every occurrence and EVERY DEATH from this pandemic. And here's why:

I'm a big fan of two Microsoft Office Suite products: OneNote and Outlook (the desktop version). When writing an email in Outlook, you can choose the priority of the message as High, Normal, and Low. All emails are Normal by default. I had a coworker that would send every email as High priority. Do you know what happens when all emails are sent as High priority? NONE of them are High priority.

That's our media. Everything is a crisis and we should pay attention to them because they are more knowledgeable than you and therefore are the arbiters of truth. Horsepuckies!

To be more accurate, they are more like the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

They have always been more concerned with selling advertising dollars than reporting the news. And because everything has been a crisis, nothing is a crisis. And they are surprised when people are not listening when there is a REAL "wolf"?!?

I'm no expert. This is nothing but My Humble But Accurate Opinion. And yet, maybe, just maybe, we should keep our distance for a bit longer.

And stop listening to the media when they cry, "Wolf!"

©Emittravel 2020

"Don't Panic!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Every issue facing the world can be directly linked to climate change (crisis) and the timeline seems to keep getting shorter for the end of the world.

"We only have 11 years to cut our emissions in half." - Elizabeth Warren - September 5, 2019 Climate Town Hall

I remember in the 1970s that we were doomed due to the impact of global COOLING. If we didn't change our ways immediately (changes which always seemed connected to redistributing wealth from one group to another) we would be thrust into another ice age!

"There's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent threat of a changing climate." - Barack Obama

It seems that everywhere you turn you hear people crying that the world is about to end and it is our fault. Unless we make drastic changes we are all going to die!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" - Chicken Little

Did you know that the world was going to end by a great flood? That was predicted to take place on February 25, 1524, when the planets would be in alignment.

The world was going to end in 1843. This was predicted by William Miller in 1831. When it didn't happen, he recalculated and determined it to take place in 1844. No dice.

In 1910, Halley's comet was to pass earth in such close proximity that it was believed that it would destroy the planet. "Comet May Kill All Earth Life, Says Scientist."

How about when Harold Camping "accurately" predicted the end times - 12 times. Never happened, but he did sell a lot of books.

And of course, we can't forget when John Cusack and a few daring individuals helped save a large number of people when the Mayan Calendar marked the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Oh wait. That was a movie.

We humorously dismiss the above because they were mostly the rantings of the religious - not the true believers we have today in science. But my question is, should we?

In a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 (Schenck v. United States), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave us the famous quote concerning shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is thought to be one of the first opinions that directly limited the 1st Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause to not allow people to cause panic.

Maybe we need to implement that and make people responsible for the things they say.

For instance: if a person gets placed on parole and then goes out and commits a crime, the people on the parole board should be held accountable. After all, by letting the person out of prison they are stating that they believe the public is in no danger. Is that a stretch? Well, look at it this way: aren't they accomplices to a crime?

What if it was made clear that if anyone - politicians included - were to make statements, especially those that create panic (see those at the top of this article for examples), they will be held responsible if they DON'T come to pass?

The Bible tells us that you can tell a false prophet by the fact that what they profess does not come to pass (and therefore should be punished - see Jeremiah 14:15)

And that includes the panic induced behind the statements of climate change criers.

Oh, and to correctly quote Justice Holmes, Jr.: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger . . . "

To all of you Chicken Littles out there: be warned. Your #MeToo-type moment is coming!

©Emittravel 2019

Because Science, Stupid!

In my last blog post I presented a simple, effective, and cost-effective solution to the (non-existent) rash of school shootings. (I say “non-existent” rash, because the number of such events have been going DOWN over the years, not increasing.) In this post I want to offer yet another option: one that is backed by science. And you know, if science says it is true, you are the worst form of human being if you disagree.

One recommendation I’ve heard lately is raising the age to permit someone to purchase a firearm (there are many terms floating around as to what that type of firearm would be, but I’m going to just call them firearms) to 21 years old. Apparently, if someone is under the age of 21 they are not “mature” enough to legally own something like that.

That is only partially correct.

Let’s see: 21 years old to purchase a firearm. 21 years old to purchase alcohol. 18 years old to purchase cigarettes (someone want to ask the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms about this discrepancy?). 18 years old to vote for the most powerful position in the United States. And 16 years old to drive a two-ton vehicle at high speeds.

So what does science say? Science says that the hippo-campus, the part of the brain that makes decisions, isn’t fully formed until the age of 25. That means we allow people who are UNABLE to make decisions to drive (there are more deaths by automobile than guns) and decide who the President of the United States should be.

Does anybody else see the problem with that?

Those of us who question the validity of man-made climate change (even though the descriptor “man-made” is often dropped) are considered crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and deniers. Why? Because, according to former President Obama, the science is settled. Therefore, since science tells us that man-made climate change is real, we need to make drastic changes in the way we conduct our lives in order to comply.

But why are we okay with allowing the SETTLED science that states people are UNABLE to make good decisions before the age of 25 the ability to do any of those things I listed above, when they are clearly not capable?

Part of it is political.

I remember the whole “Rock the Vote” during the President Clinton era. Remember when he answered such tough questions on an MTV show, surrounded by teenagers, like “Boxers or briefs?” Yeah. Those are the individuals we want in voting booths.

But that is the thing: politicians do not run on facts, clearly laid out agendas, and policies. They run on emotional manipulation. You know, the area of the brain (amygdala) that is overly developed during the same below-25 period. That’s why politicians want people stupid enough to eat Tide Pods (not to be confused with Pad Thai . . . mmmmm) in the voting booth.

So, the solution is to not allow such major life decisions to individuals under the age of 25. That means no voting, drinking, purchasing firearms, and driving. This time should be used to help those individuals LEARN how to make good decisions, instead of using them to help push agendas (I’m talking to you “anti-NRA” people.)

This would be, like man-made climate change, a drastic change in the way we conduct our lives. And yes, I’m okay with this. Why? Well one: it’s science. And two: I’m over 50.

© Emittravel 2018

Always Listen to Experts - and Do the Opposite

The other day I had a cordial, but short conversation with Anthony Carboni (https://twitter.com/acarboni) on Twitter that was brought on by a tweet he made in response to a tweet by Rick Santorum (https://twitter.com/RickSantorum), which was in response to a tweet from another person on Twitter. Believe me, it is less confusing than it sounds:

Santorum: Sad to be criticized by the left for something as obvious as solar (clouds & darkness) and wind (calm winds) are not reliable or consistent.

Carboni: My dude I am so excited to be the one to introduce you to batteries because they really are something special

Me: Just ignore what the creation and disposal of said batteries do to the environment. To make an omelet…

From there the conversation took some weird turns, primarily due to the fact that as one person was typing a tweet, the other person was replying to something different, so that when the next tweet arrived it was out of context of the conversation and just confused things. Anthony ended the conversation with:

Carboni: Okay, but that wasn’t the convo you started with me. So I’m gonna dip. Have a good one!

The big problem is that I’m incredibly slow when it comes to typing on my phone. I can’t hunt and peck, and using the “swipe” style always seems to bring up at least one or two words that I need to correct each time. Add to that that you are trying to formulate a coherent response in 140 characters (or less), knowing that the person you are responding to may already be sending multiple replies, makes using Twitter for intelligent conversations almost impossible.

Sigh…

Part of the conversation dealt with Anthony and I bringing up different facts to support our points, along with multiple points being made. Note I didn’t put the word facts in quotation marks. Because we BOTH were using facts to support our points. Just different facts.

And that is where I want to go in this post.

As Peter McWilliams said, “The media tends to report rumors, speculations, and projections as facts… How does the media do this? By quoting some ‘expert’ … you can always find some expert who will say something hopelessly hopeless about anything.”

Or:

As Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

(And the above Twain quote is also the title of a great episode of The West Wing.)

I’m a regular shmo. My formal education consists of high school, some training in the U.S. Navy, and various seminars through my job (administrative assistant). I like to read a lot, but I’m not a “college gradjeat”. But honestly, I don’t think having higher education helps much here.

As you are probably aware, today’s media, both social and corporate, inundate us with information. And like his predecessor before him, President Trump has had a field day calling news organizations “fake news”.

(If you don’t remember, President Obama went on a personal vendetta concerning Fox News.)

Then you have “experts” telling us what we should believe based on “science”. For instance, Bill Nye, who has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose fields include astrophysics and physical cosmology, are brought out as experts when it comes to the topic of climate change. Note that neither of these gentlemen are educated in climatology. Not that they haven’t done their research, but because of their popularity the very words they speak are considered “gospel”.

We’ve heard President Obama say that, concerning climate change, “The science is settled.” Last I looked, he did not have any background in the field either.

I’m not trying to make this a post about climate change; I’m using it as a good example of the issue at hand.

To break it down, we have been told over and over that “all” scientists believe in climate change. The basis for this is that 97% (not all) of scientists WHO WROTE PAPERS ABOUT MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE believe that man has a significant impact upon global climate change. That means 3% of scientists WHO WROTE PAPERS ABOUT MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE do NOT believe that man has a significant impact upon global climate change. This does NOT include those scientists who did NOT write papers. Nor is it stated that these scientists (though I do assume it is true) are indeed climatologists.

This means that “all” is a subset of scientists. I know, 97% is an awfully high number, but I always thought that science was not based on the “Popular Vote”.

Depending on which research you look at, you will find different information. That is based on several factors: What was the data the researchers used (or avoided)? For WHAT was the scientists trying to prove or disprove? And WHO was paying for the study?

The company I work for has a group called Business Analytics. I’ve been in meetings with these guys and they will take data and pull amazing information and trends out of it, all depending on how they slice and dice the data.

Which brings me to my point. For ANY topic of discussion, each person not only has to do their homework, but also has had to do the SAME homework, in order to come to any understanding in a conversation. And that is the hard part.

Not only would you need to research climate change (by the way, to paraphrase an interview with Rand Paul, “How much of climate change is natural, and how much is man-made?” Give me cold, hard numbers. What is the percentage? And does the money needed to eliminate the man-made portion REALLY going to even make a dent?), but you would need to research EVERY statement you hear (please see the Peter McWilliams and Mark Twain quotes above).

And frankly, I don’t have the time. It’s not that I don’t care; I don’t have the time.

To thoroughly research EACH statement you would need to look at ALL studies, determining the what, where, why, how, and who (paid for the studies), sift out the truth from the hype, and make an informed decision.

And that, my friends, is next to impossible (unless you have all the time and money in the world).

So to Anthony Carboni, if you are even reading this, whom I highly respect and like: just because you can out argue the arguments, does NOT mean that you are right. But please, PLEASE don’t stop! I learn so much from you.

Now excuse me while I go do some serious Indians baseball watching.

(The title is a paraphrase of a great quote by Robert A. Heinlein: “Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done, and why. Then do it.”)

© Emittravel 2017

The Science is Settled

No, the title of this blog is not intended as "click bait". In January of 2014, our own President Obama declared that the debate over climate change was settled: "Climate change is a fact."

The purpose of this particular post is not to argue for or against man-made climate change. I've done that before. What I'm hoping to convey is how important mankind may or may not be, and the impact - or lack thereof - mankind has upon the world around him.

(I follow the old-school grammar of using "he" and "him" when referencing humankind in general. I don't mean to come off as sexist. Women fit in the generalizations I will be addressing just as much.)

I was reading an article recently that was discussing man-made earthquakes. What? Really? Yes. Really. The article referenced such things as the Hoover Dam (the water pressure), years of oil and natural gas extraction, and the recent hot topic of fracking, as being influential if not directly the cause of earthquakes. Various studies have taken place over decades, with mounds and mounds of data collected concerning seismic activity. And you know what? With all of the data, with all of the experts, the decision was made: Actually, there has been no decision. There are those on both sides using the same data to make their argument. The science is NOT settled.

Of course, with climate change, with much more data from many more sources, the science is settled. At least that is what Climatologist Barack Obama said. And he's not alone. In the recent Paris Climate Summit, a bunch of climatologists (a.k.a. "politicians") got together and said that man-made climate change was settled science, and made an agreement that hopes to aggressively curb the hotbed that the earth has become (sarcasm font).

What do earthquakes and climate have in common? Man's impact - or lack thereof.

On one hand Friedrich Nietzsche stated that "God is Dead". On the other Shirley MacLaine stated that "I am God." Right there is the rub: we want a world without God, so we can sit on the throne AS God. But is that possible?

My fear is not necessarily that we create earthquakes or climate change by our actions. My fear is that our actions to fix things cause more harm because unlike God, our vision is very short-sighted and we miss the long-term impact of the things we do.

I could talk about windmills and their impact upon birds, or solar panels and the amount of reflected light/heat that may be warming the atmosphere, but I'm not. I'm going to give you a little story from my home state of Ohio:

We have a lot of deer here. A lot. I've heard that it is because of all the housing and business development that the deer have been driven from their areas and now are all over the place. That may have something to do with it, but not entirely. The other reason for the deer population growth is deer population growth. For example: for two years in a row we had two fawns in either our yard or our next-door neighbor's yard. Below are pictures of three of them:

That's four additional deer in two years. My neighbor, who (along with one of his kids) is a hunter, has bagged around one a year. That means there are two more deer running around here than originally (not including the parents still running around). I know there are other hunters, but with the limits on where you can hunt (my neighborhood is off-limits, and the deer apparently KNOW that!) and the number you can actually kill, the population is exploding.

So what did the wise leaders in Ohio do? They changed the hunting laws? Nope! Not humane enough. They brought in a natural predator: coyotes.

Let's see how well that worked out.

The coyotes have NO natural predator in Ohio thinning them out. So, we are now overrun with coyotes (see my blog). But at least the deer have been thinned out, right? Nope! The coyotes would rather go after cats and small dogs than after big deer that run too fast. So now we have both: deer AND coyotes.

When it comes to man-made climate change, the thing that scares me more than the loss of oceanfront property is the damage that man MAY do by trying to fix it.

Well, at least one thing removes my fear: the science is settled.

© Emittravel 2015

Hurt Me Once . . . Hurt Me Twice . . .

There is one thing that you possess, that nobody - no one - can take from you. Yet it is the one thing that we give away the most: good character.

Your word is your bond. And, unfortunately, be that a good word, or a bad word, it is still true. The hardest thing to lose is also the hardest to regain: your trust.

My wife and I were having a discussion over dinner concerning a comment made on a podcast we listened to. The podcast episode was called "Cracks in Human Perception" (a little long, but worth the listen), and at one point referenced global climate change.

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe in man-made global climate change, you have to agree that the solid rock that those who support it have stood on has become shifting sand over the years. From discredited photos of polar bears without an ice patch to call home, to the 1,000+ questionable emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, to the lack of the lack of ocean-front property we should be dealing with now, the climate change criers have had to do a lot of back pedaling. Even to go as far as rename the argument from "global warming" to "global climate change".

Let me make a correction to the above: the global climate change supporters have not done any back pedaling; they have simply changed their arguments as if they have never said the previous in the first place.

Regardless, because those individuals felt they needed to give us visual representations to scare us into action - visual representations that proved to be, at best premature, or at worst outright falsehoods - they have lost credibility with a lot of people. They gave away their good character.

In 1989, George H.W. Bush became the 41st President of the United States. (From a Wikipedia article) In his first four years: military operations were conducted in Panama and the Persian Gulf; the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Soviet Union dissolved two years later.

Why bring up George H.W. Bush? Because, he was a one-term President. Previously, you would have to go back to Jimmy Carter, and since? Nobody. In spite of the Whitewater scandal that plagued Bill Clinton, and the (unfounded) hatred of George W. Bush, or the golf game of Barack Obama, all of those who followed served two terms. What was the difference? What President George H.W. Bush was remembered most for was, "Read my lips: no new taxes.", and then signing an increase in taxes that Congress had passed. He lost trust with the American people. His word was his bond, and it wasn’t a good word.

All this to say, that even IF the advocates of global climate change are RIGHT, they have lost credibility by being disingenuous. They were so pressed to follow an agenda, that they lost sight of the impact of their words.

Your word is your bond. Trust me.

© Emittravel 2015

Unpredictable Predictability

My wife and I purchased a scooter a few years ago. I'm not talking the kind the kids ride around on (my leg gets REALLY tired trying to keep it moving - how DO they do that?!?), and I'm not talking about those nifty ones you can find at your local Wal-Mart (they really need to attach bells to those darn things!). I'm talking about a 2009 Kymco Grand Vista scooter.

A wonderful ride. The thing got between 65 and 70 miles per gallon, and I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - without my wife on it (she wouldn't go near a freeway) - until I saw that I was going just over 70 mph and QUICKLY slowed down!

Last year we sold it and purchased a 2009 Honda Shadow.

Another wonderful ride. Not sure of the top speed, but I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - WITH my wife on it (had to take the turnpike home one time).

I'm fortunate to have two great rides: the motorcycle and a 2004 Jeep Wrangler. Both vehicles are great for sunny days - only one is good in foul weather. I'll let you figure out which.

Which brings me to the topic of this particular blog entry: the unpredictable predictability of the weather. One day last fall, I had taken the Shadow to work because the weather had been predicted as only a 10% chance of rain that day. Understand, that means historically, with similar weather conditions, it only rained 10% of the time. 90% of the time that weather didn't happen. Sometime close to the end of the work day I called my wife to let her know that that 10% had turned into 100%!! I rode home in pouring rain; including through quite a few areas of standing water. When I got home I took my boots off and poured water out of them.

Is it me, or has the weather become more unpredictable over time? Technology has definitely improved, but there seems to be a disconnect between the available data and the way it gets interpreted. Some would say it's "Global Warming" (or the new, cop-out label: "Climate Change"), but that's difficult to believe. For the record, when they say "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", what they mean to say is "Man-made Global Warming" or "Man-made Climate Change". As I made the argument in "Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!", if it was natural weather cycles or "natural" occurrences, it wouldn't be a hot topic (pun intended). Back in the 1970s we were told of an inevitable ice age around the corner due to "Global Cooling". Clearly, they have NO idea what they are talking about. Aren't both U.S. coastlines supposed to be underwater by now?

I can understand "Climate Change" being so difficult to predict. There's an awful lot of data there to work through. But can't they at least get today's weather close? And don't start telling me how different the two "sciences" are - they both use a lot of the same data (including tidal shifts, water flows, air currents, etc.).

And on the flip side, if today's weather is so difficult to predict, how in the heck are they supposed to understand anything so long-term as "Climate Change" - or the 10-day forecast for that matter!

C'mon! I just want to know if I can ride the Shadow, or if I need to take the Jeep - WITH the top up ...

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #9

I find it amazing that climate change alarmists can claim that hurricanes and tornados are evidence of global warming, but when temperatures dip to record freezing they say, “Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.”

© Emittravel 2011

Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!

We've heard much over the last few years, from politicians to The Weather Channel, from celebrities to bloggers, and preachers of hysteria everywhere, that mankind has a death wish and that the world is on its way to being the ultimate bake sale product. Former Vice President Al Gore even set aside his political ambitions and donned the robes of religious authority in the worship of Mother Earth.

The major push is that through mankind's selfish ambitions, and total disregard for the earth's natural resources, the earth's global temperature is on a dangerous climb upwards. Now, there has been plenty of dissent concerning this push, but this blog entry is not to give an in-depth investigation into each argument. Some of them have been things like the temperature on Mars has been on the rise (which is pretty amazing to think that that SUV you are driving has more than just a global impact - it has a galactic impact as well), or that the data that is being used was originally obtained from technology that was just that side of indoor plumbing, and has since been manipulated to the point that the accuracy has greatly diminished to something less than blind-folded skeet shooting. No, this blog entry is to look at something else. Something beyond mankind's ability to control. I'm not even talking about the sun (which covers that Mars "inconvenient truth"). I'm talking about the mother of all polluters: toxic-fume belching volcanoes.

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (which was before the EPA decided that exhaling was polluting) from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

That, my dear readers, is worth repeating:

I remember being told by the scientific community back in the early 1980s when Mount St. Helens erupted, that there was more pollution, toxic greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide from that one eruption, than all of the industrial age COMBINED.

My question is, what happened to it all? I mean really! If what we have done to the earth is borderline irreparable, where is the damage from Mount St. Helens? I don't remember seeing a slide show condemning Mother Earth for her blatant disregard for her own well being. Come on, shouldn't someone fully take over power of attorney when it comes to her affairs? Sounds to me like she is totally incapable of caring for herself.

And Mt. St. Helens isn't my only example. In the first quarter of this year, Eyjafjallajökull (a name I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce, for fear that my "tongue will snap off its rollers" - to quote the great Hawkeye) erupted in Greenland. The most repeated news item I heard concerning this (and I admit, I don't watch news 24/7) was the disruption to air traffic over the area. I heard not a peep about the competition to man's race to the "finished" line.

Instead we have received a barrage of condemnation for man's behavior as a tenant, and demands for the "great landlord" to evict us, and nothing concerning the earth's volcanoes to please "stick a cork in it". But if a volcano is capable of spewing out much more destruction than all of man's efforts combined, than I would think it would warrant at least one slide in Mr. Gore's PowerPoint presentation. If the atmosphere wasn't so darned efficient at cleaning up after itself . . .

When it comes to "Joe vs. the Volcano", the volcano wins hands down.

©Emittravel 2010