From a Times Online article:
Regardlessly there couldn't be more scientific proof that global warming is real and caused by greenhouse gases that we emit. But there are crazies in this world who debate the validity of science itself. And call it religious... and it is a faith based occupation of human beings. This act of empirically looking at things to come to rational conclusions.
Ugh, just humouring these notions makes me seriously ill. But yeah if some neo-con nerd argues that global warming is natural then mention this study. Or the numerous studies that correlate tree growth to temperature and pollution. They will of course move on to debating the validity of science. Perhaps while driving their combustion engine or using their micro-processor powered computer.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."Big oil has of course been changing it's story for the last 30 years as more and more scientific data has been collected. Likely so they could migrate their investments into renewable sources of energy and beat us hippies to the punch.
Regardlessly there couldn't be more scientific proof that global warming is real and caused by greenhouse gases that we emit. But there are crazies in this world who debate the validity of science itself. And call it religious... and it is a faith based occupation of human beings. This act of empirically looking at things to come to rational conclusions.
Ugh, just humouring these notions makes me seriously ill. But yeah if some neo-con nerd argues that global warming is natural then mention this study. Or the numerous studies that correlate tree growth to temperature and pollution. They will of course move on to debating the validity of science. Perhaps while driving their combustion engine or using their micro-processor powered computer.
Speaking of which
Date: 2005-02-18 06:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 07:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 07:23 pm (UTC)I meant "what point are you trying to make?" - Do you mean looking at the notion of a totally subjective concept in an totally objective way?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 09:14 pm (UTC)You know: "Your assertions appear to be well-founded, conclusively researched, and irrefutable - therefore I believe that you are correct. Your thorough exploration of the facts gives me considerable faith that your conclusion is indeed fact and not theory."
That sort of thing...
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 07:23 pm (UTC)Or just show them Vancouver 10 years ago compared to now: We no longer get snow on our ski hills, our forests are drying up and burning off in the summers (we're a *rainforest*), and our migratory animals have stopped doing so.
When you actually live on the edge of nature, it's impossible to say there's no effect... hell -- it's visible now.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-19 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-19 07:57 pm (UTC)- as heard after hiking to the top of a local mountain last summer
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 10:11 pm (UTC)