Uh, The World is Not on Fire (Cigar Smoke 11/15/07)

The Pasadena Weekly published a front-page story in the Nov. 1 issue headlined “World on Fire.” Well, I hate to tell Amy Goodman, her expert, Tim Flannery, and whoever wrote that headline, but the world does not seem to be on fire to me.

Here’s how I figure it: Oceans compose about 75 percent of Earth’s surface, so we can safely say that the oceans are not on fire. Then there are all the lakes and rivers and streams, etc., which probably aren’t on fire either. Let’s say the lakes and rivers conservatively cover five percent of Earth’s surface, so that makes at least 80 percent of the world that is not on fire.
The 20 percent of the remaining surface is made up of land. Out of that 20 percent, there were no significant fires in the Arctic, the Antarctic, Russia, China, India, Australia, Africa, Greenland, Iceland or Canada or anywhere else on the planet. That is not hyperbole. That is how it was.

As far as I know the only major fires were in Southern California, and only in San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. And the fires did not come close to burning those entire counties. They probably burned, at most, one percent of all five counties.

So now you have one percent of five counties in one state in the United States. The other 49 states do not have any alarming fires going on at this time. So, at most, and even this is quite a stretch, the percentage of the Earth’s surface which was on fire was about one one-thousandth of a percent. Not one percent; one-thousandth of one percent.

If you don’t agree with this, please tell me where my stats are wrong. I’m sincere. I haven’t thrown any anti-liberal bombs in this column. I haven’t used any swear words. I haven’t taken any cheap shots. I just want to have a discussion. So discuss. Sure, I’ve generalized about the percentage, but I think what I’ve said is basically correct. So tell me: Where am I wrong? Tell me what percentage of the world was on fire.

When the Weekly comes out and says on its front page, “World on Fire,” I have to speak up. And that nice little Earth illustration, tinged in red with the subtle red-type headline? Well, while those fires were going on, I was driving from California to Tucson and I did not see ONE fire in either state, not counting the broiler in Denny’s. And when I got back, alas, even Pasadena wasn’t on fire. The only thing that was on fire, it seems to me, was Amy Goodman’s incendiary prose. I guess the headline “One one-thousandth of one percent of the world on fire” just wasn’t quite punchy enough.

OK, now you’re going to say that what Amy really meant was kind of a metaphor. And you’re thinking I’m just a right-wing dummy who didn’t get her nuanced point. She really didn’t think that the entire world was on fire; she just wanted to point out how bad things were going in general and that global warming was probably a major determining factor in that badness, and a little exaggeration for a good cause is fine. Something like that, huh?

One of the things that Amy conveniently forgets to report is that at least four of the fires were caused by arson! Wow! That global warming even turns people into arsonists. That’s powerful stuff.

Oh, I almost forgot: Her expert, Tim Flannery, thinks global warming has caused all the fires AND the hurricanes and floods in New Orleans a couple of years ago AND the worldwide droughts. Now, that’s a pretty good trick. If the Earth’s atmosphere is too warm, it not only makes things warmer, it makes them wetter. And drier. Probably makes things lukewarm and chilly too.

You know, I’m a pretty old codger and I can remember when the hysteria about climate change was a deep concern that the planet was getting too cold! Back in the 1970s, Time or Newsweek ran a front-page story saying we were going to experience a new Ice Age, with a big picture of Earth frozen in ice. That was only 30 years ago. Now the world is on fire?

Let’s just assume that the water level in New York will rise in 100 years. Don’t you think by then we’ll have figured a way around it? Heck, Holland has already had that exact problem and has built an incredible system of dykes, canals and power plants. I saw it on the Discovery Channel. So hate me, hate the Discovery Channel.

And regarding the potential water shortage: Come on, now. If there ever was a life-or-death need for water, don’t you think we would figure out the desalinization process? We can take the salt out of water right now. It’s just generally too costly. If we had to do it for our survival, we could do it in a breeze — warm or cold.

I just wish all the global-warming people would take it down a notch or two. I tried to lower my volume. I didn’t throw any, excuse the expression, firebombs of bombassity. Let’s talk about it. Send me an email.

And remember, there are two “s”es in A-S-S-H-O-L-E.