After reading a commentary last week, “Warming warning overrated,” I was hit by this uncanny wave of déj? vu. I knew that somewhere I had heard such a claim that global warming was not a catastrophe, but instead a boon to both the economy and the lifestyle of less fortunate and elderly people worldwide.

Then I remembered: Stephen Colbert argued on “The Colbert Report” for what he called “The Convenientest Truth.” I found it ironic that such an outlandish statement made by a character, defined by his hyperbole and lack of scientific interest, would be echoed months later by a non-satiric voice equally misinformed and unabashed in his generalization.

He states that “1934 was the warmest year according to some records.” According to The New York Times, adjustments made by NASA in August 2007 to their method of meshing of two sets of temperature data for the 48 contiguous U.S. states led to 1934’s title as warmest year on record-in the United States. However, sources such as the National Climatic Data Center of the Commerce Department place 1934 as only third warmest on record for the lower 48.

Not only does this commentary somehow try to blame Al Gore for ignoring changes made more than a year after his movie, but its complaint is still incorrect. NASA-the entity responsible for the data that lists 1934 as warmest on record for the United States-still ranks 2005 the warmest year on record worldwide. More importantly, the five warmest years on record worldwide have occurred since 1998.

This author also suffers from faulty logic: If it is true that less money was spent on heating and fewer people died from cold, what makes the author (and Stephen Colbert’s character) think that global warming will simply stop as soon as it is comfortable? How long until we are spending more money on cooling and more people are dying from heat?

However, what is inexcusable is the unfounded, irrelevant political diatribe that the commentator ties to the climate change dilemma. It is comprised of pure, speculative, politically charged, talking-head nonsense. It completely removes legitimacy from any scientific debate and instead pegs the author as having some agenda.

It is because these ugly rants still take place that the United States has failed to act on this problem. This is why Al Gore called it a “moral” issue. As a moral issue, it is upon all sectors for a solution. It is not based on political party. Gore didn’t want people like the author to play politics with the fate of the planet.

Brian Laczko
Senior