I find it fascinating that global warming is suddenly doubtful and mysterious now that it's political.
Aren't we sort of the masters of Earth right now? If the world is getting hotter it's going to become mighty inconvenient for us, so even if it is just a 'natural cycle', surely it makes sense for us to try and subvert that particular natural process.
Why are environmentalists so afraid of opposing viewpoints? If their ideas were so superior why can they not stand criticism and debate.
This is also a lovely little ad hominem attack right here. The thing I like most about it is that it paints 'environmentalists', which includes scientists, concerned citizens and rabid anti-corporatists in one fell swoop, as somehow wanting to crush the debate on global warming, despite the fact that
they brought it up in the first place and it's those that disagree with it who are trying to shut the debate down! It's quite clever, really.
The answer to the question, incidentally, is much the same as why evolutionists don't debate creationists: it's a very nice political idea, but it's not science and it just doesn't stand up if it's presented as science. There are melting glaciers in many places around the world, a strong sign of increased temperatures in those parts of the world. There is a strong correlation between high levels of CO2 and average temperatures. (This of course doesn't mean that everywhere will become hotter, but it does mean that weather will become more volatile. You know, huge storms for two months of the year, yo-yoing seasons, that sort of thing.) Yes, CO2 fluctuates. Yes, there are natural cycles of heating and cooling. This does not change the core thesis: glaciers are melting, and the sea levels are rising, and if the sea levels rise too high we're all
screwed.
The mechanics of climate change are, for the most part, easily grasped and easily modelled (much like evolution). The effects are more difficult, but it's really easy to get funding for it these days.
I'm going to cut myself off there because this'll probably devolve into a rant about evolution, and from there the only place to go is to make snide remarks about the quality of public knowledge in America these days and how's that Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohen News Hour coming along.
Edit: But this is a bit combative, which is no way to have a discussion! The basic mechanics of global warming (and, for that matter, evolution) are quite simple and well-understood, and I'm happy to explain them for anyone who's not sure. That way we're all on the same page and can at least have an informed debate instead of everyone basically arguing from hearsay.
____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?
Click here to view the secret text
×Lost.
[Last edited by Mattcrampy at 08-14-2007 01:36 AM]
).