Sod-busting and hype
Sod-busting and hype
I would like to make a few comments about an article by author Julene Bair that was printed in the paper a few weeks ago.
In the article, it appears that Bair laments the conversion of prairie grasslands to cropland over our history and the resultant loss of aesthetic beauty and the theoretical increase in release of C02, among other things, as a result. She quotes from a 2007 survey by Harris Interactive of 489 scientists that 97 percent believe in global warming -- implying that they believe manmade C02 is the cause as that is the main subject of her article.
One problem is that is not exactly what the survey showed. What it showed was that although 97 percent believed in global warming, "only 29 percent express a "great deal of confidence" that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic (human) sources of greenhouse gases."
Doesn't this appear to say that these scientists believe they don't know the extent of human contribution and any contribution could be tiny and insignificant? Furthermore, the survey does not appear to address the issue of whether manmade C02 is, in actuality, a driving factor or even a significant contributor to global warming.
Which really is the issue isn't it? Meanwhile a petition recently signed by 31,000 scientists, more than 9,000 of them Ph.D.s, states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate." That petition appears to address the real issue doesn't it? In addition, the American Physical Society, recently set up a physics forum to discuss the issue recognizing that "there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree" that man's activity is "primarily responsible for global warming." Thus, it appears, there is no consensus and the actual debate may finally begin, and perhaps her concerns regarding C02 are overblown.
Secondly, Bair implies that the Homestead Act was a bad thing because it led to massive sod-busting. I contend that it was genius. It was a great nation-building idea. It contributed significantly to the development, growth and strength of the United States. I contend that if Third World countries would emulate this idea today, they too could build strong democratic economies as we did. After all, the purpose of the Homestead Act was to populate the land and allow people to own their own property. That was the key factor, ownership, and I believe, unique in world history.
It led to massive immigration, economic development and opportunity for anyone who was willing to work the land and try to make a living. They became Americans because it was their land, it was their country. It's safe to say that the U.S. would not be the economic power in the world today without the descendents of the millions of moral, hard working people who migrated to the Midwest and the U.S. as a direct result of the Homestead Act.
Finally, besides the foolish belief that manmade C02 is causing global warming, a great deal of her angst appears to be directed at changes in the land from its natural state or environment.
Doesn't it sound like she values environmental stasis above human welfare and freedom?
Many people, at least out here, think the natural prairie is a beautiful thing. These same people, thinking about the accomplishments of their fathers and grandfathers, think that mile after mile of crops growing in the sun is a beautiful thing too.
Jim Horacek
3006 Northridge Court
In response to Mr. Horacek’s thought-provoking comments, I would like to point out that the Harris poll was conducted among professional scientists who were members of the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. Climate change is a field of expertise among these scientists, who perform, review and stay apprised of the latest studies. 97% believe global warming is occurring, and 85% believe that it is either moderately or greatly dangerous to the Earth. 84% believe that “human induced warming is occurring.” The 29% figure refers to science’s inability, as yet, to pinpoint exactly how much of the warming is due to human causes. But we are splicing straws. The opinion of climate scientists does bear more credence than what 31,000 people who once earned some kind of science degree might think or believe. But what really matters are the conclusions reached through reputable, scientifically conducted research. The studies overwhelmingly concur that warming is a reality; that humans have caused much of the problem; and that it will negatively impact life on the planet, including us. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing almost every nation on Earth, reviewed the conclusions drawn by climate studies worldwide. Here are their findings, as summarized by the New York Times: “...[G]lobal warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels..” If the IPCC’s conclusions fail to convince, then check out the statement issued in December 2006 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now." However upsetting this news is, we gain nothing by arguing with the messengers. We need to promptly adopt policies that will stave off this crisis. Regarding the Homestead Act, I agree that many very noble and courageous pioneers and their descendants were the backbone of the nation and that great good came out of the act. But much land on the western Plains was marginal cropland and should have been left in grass. The Conservation Reserve Program gave farmers an opportunity to profitably retire that land. It’s a shame to see much of it being farmed again, at great expense to the region’s topsoil, water and wildlife, and, as I argued in my essay, to the detriment of planetary health.
(Posted by: Julene Bair)
All comments are subject to approval before being posted. Please keep comments constructive and relevant. Opinions certainly can be expressed, but comments that are rude, abusive, slanderous, threatening, sexually oriented, contain profanity or are vulgar will not be tolerated. Comments will not be edited. Any comment that violates the above-listed rules will be deleted.
