Sunday, November 23, 2008

Who knows why in Hell the bells toll?


So at high noon the bells, bells, bells of Grace Church directly in downtown Amherst pealed 8 or 9 times and then fell silent. In the distance I could hear the bells of St. Brigid's, perhaps a 1,000 yards north, still pealing to announce the end of Catholic mass. Hmmm...

But a moment or two later Grace Church started clanging once more--and this time a tad more forcefully--with a quicker rhythm (maybe the bell ringer was trying to keep warm as my auto's temperature gage read exactly a freezing 32 degrees). Yeah, this must now be the protest against Global Warming, 150 rings no less.

Of course ringing church bells at high noon on a Sunday is kind of like letting off fireworks on the 4'Th of July--par for the course. So I wonder how many people in downtown Amherst who heard the bells ring at noon-plus-3-or-4 minutes realized this was a Global Warming protest?

Last year the Grace Church faithful jumped into the waters of Puffers Pond in early December to protest Global Warming. At least that had a bit of contrast--so you could figure out something less-than-normal was occurring.

Next year they should invite Al Gore to see if he will get naked and jump into Fort River, Mill River or Puffers Pond. Now that would turn heads (if only to vomit.)


video

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wish conservatives weren't so eager to embrace anti-intellectualism. Re: Gore, nude, barfing. All from the writer's imagination, and substitute their contempt for an issue with their contempt for an advocate.

Anonymous said...

Are you pro global warming Larry?

LarryK4 said...

Only when it's freaken COLD outside.

ed said...

Larry, I know you are from a different wing of the GOP than I, but you really must admit that this year is COLDER than most -- from the spring -- and thus that perhaps the lack of sunsport radiation might be an issue here....

Sorry, Global Warming might be a GOOD thing....

Anonymous said...

Don't kid yourself. That's like hoping that polluting rivers will bring about positive mutations.

Scientists are alarmed about global warming because bad things will happen. The amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere could literally leave our air unbreathable in a few centuries.

If you have children you simply can't wish on them a world that could be a nightmare.

If you believe that Americans have the character to get together and make collective sacrifices to fight wars such as WWII, then we should be able to make some sacrifices to preserve the planet.

Ed said...

Look at this realistically for a moment:

If you take a cup of water and put it into a microwave, the magnetic aspects of the microwaves causes the water to spin and the friction heats it up.

Solar flares are massive bursts of energy that literally cook satelites, would cook us if we were outside the protection of our atmosphere (and a couple were to the point where there was a very real concern about the safety of jet aircraft).

Now the Earth's magnetic field moves these around the planet, creates the northern lights and such. Fairly significant amounts of energy is involved in this, and I can't help but think that heat is involved, either generated or consumed.

To believe in global warming theory one has to believe that the atmosphere retaining a small extra amount of heat is changing the weather -- but can you believe this without also believing that if you shoot a MASSIVE amount of energy into the atmosphere, it is going to do something?

And then temperature changes have always been cyclical anyway. There is credible evidence that we are going into a second "little ice age" and that is just as credible as the evil CO2 problem.

Hey, I remember the global cooling scares of 30 years ago, I remember being told that we all will have to be wearing gas masks outdoors by 1980 or so.

How many times can you cry wolf before people start simply dismissing ALL of it...

ed said...

> The amount of CO2 increase in the
> atmosphere could literally
> leave our air unbreathable
> in a few centuries.

You have GOT to be kidding!

First, do you have any idea how high the level of C02 would have to be before it caused humans problems?

Second, while it is acid rain and would make the oceans acidic which is another issue, CO2 dissolves in rain/water to become Carbonic Acid.

Third, plants take the carbon out of CO2 to use for photosysnthis. So we could have massive algae blooms on the deep water ocean and the buildup of dead algae in the deep canyons below where it will eventually become oil, coal & natural gas. (Where did the offshore oil of today come from?)

At some point you have got to start looking at this realistically....

Anonymous said...

OK, the exact probability of massive climate shifts happening is unknown. To me, "realistic" means that we still have an obligation to reduce CO2 dramatically, precisely because the negative consequences would be so huge. A crude analogy-- you're unlikely to die in the next 20 years, but you still pay life insurance premiums, because the consequence of your death would be so terrible for your descendants.

There's plenty out there about how global warming can paradoxically produce much colder winters in some areas. And, surprisingly, a new ice age. If the ice caps melt enough, it's quite possible that the Gulf Stream will shift or stop, leading to a huge cooling in a matter of just several years. Think Massachusetts covered in ice 12 months of the year.

See, for example,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute .

Talking about one cold winter or one hot summer in the beautiful happy valley misses the point-- what matters are trends, large-scale patterns, shifts in average temps. And what we're seeing scares the hell out of me.

AJ

Ed said...

I think that Democrats cause wars.

Lyndon Johnson did.
Harry Truman did.
FDR did.
Wilson did.
Buchanan did.

So just to be safe, lets impeach Obama...

Makes as much sense. Global warming causes the entire globe to be cooler. RIGHT....

Anonymous said...

On January 20, we'll finally get rid of an anti-intellectual anti-science president whose policies were based on his own under informed judgment.

Your concern about understanding the scientific basis for policy is well... ironic, maybe hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

So, Ed, what was it? Was it all them fancy words, or the high-falutin' idears that made it impossible for you to finish the whole article? Don't attack some caricature of of what it said and pretend you've emerged victorious.

Congrats on one thing, though-- two whole entries without any reference to UMass! Keep it up!