Their admission threw the planet into a drastic cooling trend, as Hell promptly froze over.
HT: The Anchoress
Their admission threw the planet into a drastic cooling trend, as Hell promptly froze over.
HT: The Anchoress
ROFL! What a fantastic laugh to start off my day!
Thanks!
(still snickering…)
Glad to be of service. 🙂
What they seem to be describing is oscillation, which will definitely confuse short-term policymakers as to what should be done, since we seem incapable of planning more than 2 or 3 years in advance as a society.
For my part, the things we supposedly should be doing to prevent global warming are things we should be doing anyway for other good reasons (acid rain, respiratory disease, smog, limited oil supplies, oil dependency, etc.) so I'll continue trying to do them, and hope that no dreadful threshold has been crossed just yet (not that we would know until it is too late).
Oh, I agree with you. I'd just like to see the argument for taking care of our things made on an honest level.
Well, again, I don't think there is any reason not to believe that CO2 has an impact on the planet, and that moving more of it into the atmosphere than ever before in known geological history is a good idea.
I also think that if we got behind it, it would be easy to point out much more simple and inevitable disasters. In fact, though it points to a way in which I am crazy, I could probably name 20 or so right now, with little footnotes for each, that unless significant changes are made (or the outside chance of new and wondrous technology from unseen quarters) will undoubtedly befall us.
I can see ways that global warming is appealing from an advertising point of view – it affects everyone, is not something you can simply export and forget about (like we do regularly with garbage and poverty and violence and pollution and so on) and, hey, who doesn't love polar bears? The problem for me is presenting it as incontrovertible, in an agenda-driven way, rather than likely, or compelling, etc., from a basis of scientific evidence and educated speculation.
That's part of the problem. Another part is that the whole model is so blasted simplistic. My background in systems theory is purely in the application to relational systems, not the hard sciences, but I know enough to know that the biosphere is a vastly complicated system of interlocking systems, and global-warming advocates aren't dealing with that. They're on the level of the dysfunctional family pointing at the youngest kid and saying, "He's the problem–fix him." I'm quite sure that increased CO2 output has some effect, and that we're better off not putting CFCs into the atmosphere; but I don't think crisismongering makes good policy, especially based on an argument that ignores so many factors and influences.