Home > Environment, Science & Technology > Getting hot in more ways than one

Getting hot in more ways than one

August 21, 2007

A comment from Ed on the previous post prompted me to look for news reports on the heat wave.  Apparently US weather is getting global attention: China View reports Heat wave kills 49 in Southeast, Midwest, U.S..

  BEIJING, Aug. 20 (Xinhuanet)—Two more persons in Memphis, Tennessee, were killed by the two-week heat wave, bringing the number of heat wave victims in Southeast and Midwest of the United Sates to at least 49, according to media reports Monday.

  In Memphis, Tennessee, the heat-related death toll in nine days has reached to 12. Most victims were elderly and living in homes without air-conditioning…

I would love to think this is an isolated weather event and not a climate trend – because honestly the latter thought frightens me.  But there’s this report from Phoenix:

Average number of 110+ degree days at Phoenix Sky Harbor per year by decade:
1950s: 6.7
1960s: 10.3
1970s: 17.0
1980s: 19.0
1990s: 13.6
2000s: 21.6

If this trend continues – and it sure ain’t slowing down – it’s going to do us a lot more damage than any terrorist organization ever could.  It’s past time for half-hearted measures; we need change NOW and it’s got to come from individuals, from governments, and from corporations. 

I don’t know if it’s a hopeful sign, or a warning, that even conservatives are finally catching on. Maybe I’ll believe it when I see people moving closer to work, driving less hoggy cars, bicycling, recycling aluminum (which saves a butt-load of energy), etc.  And – oh yeah – voting for candidates who take the environment seriously. 

  1. August 21, 2007 at 08:25 | #1

    And – oh yeah – voting for candidates who take the environment seriously.

    It’s just depressing that there aren’t many.  Even ones that look and sound impressive are still openly against science and evolution.

    I think our political system needs a complete 180…

  2. Ted
    August 23, 2007 at 08:50 | #2

    Even ones that look and sound impressive are still openly against science and evolution.

    Well, maybe because science and evolution look to be firmly aligned with the socialists. Why do you hate America so much that you’d align yourself with the communist ilk?

    The business of America is business. Without a strong economic focus that drives our public policy (Democrat or Republican), we’d be just another sorry European country. Tax, tax, tax and the failures of European command economies; the only thing that stands between our values and socialism are the lobbyist beholden brand of American politicians.

  3. August 23, 2007 at 08:58 | #3

    LOL Ted, I wear my red PROUD!

    I just wish we could drop our stupid two party system and get someone in office that understands a TRULY successful government is one that is able to adapt to the differing needs a country has from time to time.  Not any one system alone is going to be good.

  4. August 23, 2007 at 10:20 | #4

    Even ones that look and sound impressive are still openly against science and evolution.

    I recently found out Hillary Clinton considers herself – well not a “follower”, exactly, but maybe an “enlightenee” of Deepak Chopra, the Woo-Age healer who (mis) uses the terminology of quantum theory to sound all scientific ‘n stuff.

    Gaaahkk!  Hurrghk!  Ptuii!  Considering her stellar academic background, that is a huge disappointment.  It’s no better than the creationist dimwit Republican candidates. It reminds me of Reagan’s astrologer. 

    It reminds me of that scene in Wayne’s World where the gas station attendant is going on about his relationship history and Wayne looks at the camera: “I know this is a minor role, but can’t we get a better actor?!”  Can’t we get a less credulous pack of candidates?

  5. August 23, 2007 at 10:35 | #5

    I just found out about Hillary too.  Sigh!!!  Just another reason why I dislike Hillary

Comments are closed.