Thursday, July 5, 2007

I'm So Confused!

All the hype over Live Earth and global warming and the rash of wildfires in the western U.S. has brought me into conflict with my annoyingly persistent memories of junior high, high school, and lower division college science classes. How can this be, you ask? Isn't there a concensus amongst those of the scientific community that global warming is a real threat? Didn't global warming cause those fires? Well, allow me to explain myself.

From sixth grade science through university level biology, all we children of the 80s and 90s have heard is that the Earth is always in delicate balance. That each bit of flora and fauna has its niche to fill and if the population of a particular species in any given part of the world is dying off, it throws the balance out the window. Even in my differential equations class we had word problems for the "predator-prey model". For my non-geek audience, "diff e-q" is a pain in the butt branch of mathematics that I've used maybe twice since I graduated. The "delicate balance" view is consistent with the environmental wacko's paradigm. It's basic premise is that we humans are destructive intruders and the best thing we could do for the Earth is just die off and leave the apes in charge. Small wonder that the vast majority of enviro-nuts are also pro-abortion, no?

The "delicate balance" view is taught right alongside Darwinism, which in a nutshell teaches "survival of the fittest". The theory of evolution puts forth that species will evolve, either behaviorally or physically, to adapt to changes in their environment. According to scientists that monitor the finches on the Galapagos Islands (the same finches that Darwin observed over 150 years ago), this adaptation can occur as rapidly as three years. Keep in mind, however, that new species are not evolving from old species. The characteristics of the finch species are changing, but the genome of the finch species is not. Don't know what a genome is? Look it up. If you really want to get the goat of a rabid Darwinist, just mention the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and the conspicuous lack of intermediate species (species that evolved...and flopped like that Mariah Carey movie Glitter).

Now, to my point of contention: the recent wildfires, regardless of catalyst, were dramatically escalated by dry, dead vegetation. Brush and dead trees that private citizens and members of the Forest Service are not permitted to clear out because this dead undergrowth provides habitat for endangered and threatened species. In Utah's Milford Flat fire, the moisture in the vegetation was at zero percent, while the humidity was at three percent! In the Angora Fire (near South Lake Tahoe), the fire was fueled by vegetation that was mandated undisturbed by state and local agencies to control erosion and maintain water quality in Lake Tahoe.

Won't the ash and debris running off into the lake cause more damage to water quality? How about all of those noxious "greenhouse gases" and their damage to the ozone? Nevermind the damage done to wildlife habitat (click here for a satellite photo of the burn area). Why would nature not have taken its course if people, in the interest preventing raging wildfires, had cleared out the dead vegetation? Since fires caused by lightning strikes are acts of nature, how is this not seen as overthrowing the "delicate balance"? Are we required to cover "acts of God" (to use the insurance companies' lingo) by the purchase of carbon offsets from Algore's company?

So many questions! Luckily, I hold firmly with the idea of Intelligent Design. Our Creator in His infinite wisdom made the Earth idiot-proof, much to the consternation of liberals. I'm by no means advocating wanton destruction of the Earth's natural (God-given) beauty. I merely believe that we need to be good stewards by using and maintaining our resources. To not use the bounty of the earth is to waste potential, and the only losers are all of humanity. Don't believe me? Take it from someone who lives in one of the most impoverished regions of the world.

No comments: