The National Review has a cover story on global warming. Apparently lots of thir facts are wrong. Again, I don't get it, do these people want to dramatically alter life on earth?
A couple of days ago I asked for some statistic like 98% of scientists agree. Conveniently this article does just that. It seems that in all 928 peer-reviewed papers on the topic published between 1993 and 2003, none disagree with the concensus view that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" (which means greenhouse gases mostly carbon dioxide).
And yet the National Review article apparently says "[T]here is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far." Ugh.
1 comment:
While the scientific proof (and just visual of glaciers and ice caps on some peaks) does indicate global warming and the need to do something.....the economics and politics have yet to be worked out.
While there is economic opportunity in this issue....it is not for the powers-that-be which want status quo. And the cost of global warming is not yet being immediately felt.
My guess is the cost of global warming needs to increase....or perhaps someone like Gore as frontman on this issue will have some effect and be able to manage the politics and economics so that change can occur.
It is like the old mills in New England...too easy to use the rivers for power and dump your crap/cost downstream to be born by someone else.
Or the mindset of a whale hunter...killing every whale you see maximizes your profit....sparing whales is not in your best interest.
It takes a bigger mindset....or a different set of economics where the cost of global warming is being born by those doing it...and not being dumped downstream for others.
While I am in favor of action...I...like most...have not traded in my car for a hybrid nor converted my home heating system to something more efficient.
Post a Comment