An Inconvenient Truth
Well, I came across a very surprising article in the New York Times today. The case for global warming is starting to look pretty cold, which in my opinion is a positive turn of events. I can’t wait for the death knell of such atrocious pseudoscience.
Unfortunately, it now seems we’re up against a mega-apocalyptic-ice-age-of-doom. In order to avert such catastrophes, guess what we’ll need to do? This little jewel of a quote says everything:
The Nature paper…goes on to propose that humans, as long as they have a technologically powerful society, would be likely to avert such a slide into a long big chill by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
So now we need to increase our carbon emissions? Hold on. I’m confused. I thought we were cutting back on carbon emissions…
That doesn’t obviate the need to curb such emissions and the prospect of dangerous climate warming in the short run, Dr. Crowley said.
…okay, so we’re still cutting back…but just for right now? That doesn’t make any sense! If we need a steady build-up of greenhouse gasses, then don’t we need a steady build-up of greenhouse gases?
Honestly, I think these junk-scientists are getting nervous, because they know the winds of data have shifted in a dour direction, and the denial of tenure is nigh.
In other “science” news, some yahoo has discovered that warfare’s been around since the dawn of man.
One question: why are we paying these people?
