Alex, I'll take things that have nothing to do with sports for $200. Sports Illustrated has always had a social conscience. When women were oppressed by having to wear clothes, SI struck back and gave us the swimsuit issue. Now they have brought us an inconvenient cover story, complete with a photo shopped picture of Dontrelle Willis standing in a flooded Dolphin Stadium. Inside the issue, four pages of dire warnings about the destruction of sports as we know it thanks to climate change. The SI cover was enough to make me put down "The Economist" article on Kobe Bryant and turn over to see the Oprah Winfrey special report on the Cubs pitching rotation. Of course, those didn't really happen because you don't read "The Economist" for the sports reports or watch Oprah for her insights on shoulder injuries. And you don't read Sports Illustrated for environmental coverage. Well, actually not even environmental coverage, more like "War of the Worlds" meets "The Wide World of Sports" meets "The Weather Channel". Environmentalists have done, and continue to do, great things for humanity. If you're reading this while looking out at a city skyline not a hazy shade of smog gray you can thank an environmentalist. Clean drinking water, species protection, wetlands conservation. All thanks to the green influence on science, business, and politics. So where does "Sports Illustrated" fit in, and what do they add to the debate? Surprisingly little, actually. Most of the article is a dry recap of information you've probably read elsewhere, reduced to almost cartoonish generalization. We learn from the article that the cancellation of a ski team practice in the US because of heavy snow, and the cancellation of a European practice for lack of snow are both caused by man made climate change. When a game is rained out it's because of global warming, and when it doesn't rain in Texas and football practice is called off it's also due to global warming. The Super Dome was attacked by a hurricane on global warming's version of steroids, and the Super Bowl put a million extra pounds of carbon dioxide in the air due to people travelling to the game. Finally, in a paragraph of breathtaking incoherence, we are told that sports are "the last of the semi-pagan calandars we keep" (although I suspect there are a few people who squirreled away the SI Swimsuit one). And so it goes, backed by a raft of quotes from a cross country skiing, author and activist. It goes without saying that skiiers are experts on climate science, mainly because they aren't. That the climate is changing is undeniable. The only constant in climate studies is that the climate is constantly changing. The degree and cause are rightly subject to scientific study and debate. But does that debate belong in a sports magazine? To the extent that the issue has become politicized, the SI article amounts to little more than a partisan broadside. Does it offer compelling evidence? Hardly. Does the article have the power to pursuade? Not likely. What's the point, then? The article follows a comment about NASCAR using unleaded fuel with a musing on the importance of converting "Joe Sixpack" to the cause. That would be us sports fans, presumably. Mindless sheep waiting to be lead to enlightenment by morally superior cross country skiiers. I dare say many, if not most, sports fans care about political, economic, social, and environmental issues that are complex and often intellectually and emotionally draining. We don't retreat from the real world when we come to sports, but by and large we check those cares at the door. Sports is a refreshing break from a world increasingly divided by partisan passion. So, to Dontrelle Willis I say this. Stay away from flooded infields and head inland when you become a free agent (Houston is lovely in the summer and quite dry). And to "Sports Illustrated" I offer this advice. Read everything you can on climate change on both sides of the argument, think about it carefully, and the next time you run into a cross country skier talk to him. About skiing.