A short observation and then I must go.
A common critique (which I actually agree with) that the left dishes out of "global warming deniers" is that they "foolishly" use examples of record cold temperatures in specific areas and ignore the overall macro-empirical evidence of global temperature trends. This is usually couched in a phrase such as;
"Those stupid right-wingers no doubt are going to use a snow storm in Spokane to prove that globally the planet is cooling. Those morons!"
However, by the same logic, and assuming they are adult enough to adhere to intellectual honesty, wouldn't every anecdotal bit of evidence that "proves" global warming be equally worthless?
Things like;
"Glaciers in this particular mountain range are eroding."
Or
"Polar bears in this particular area are less populous than they were before."
Or
"Global warming will kill this particular group of frogs."
I mean at least the "dumb-moronic right wingers" are talking about temperatures directly and therefore are at least speaking directly to global warming, not hypothesizing about the theoretical indirect, tangential effects, 6 times removed having some adverse effect on some endangered species according to a computer model that failed to pick up this recent trend of cooling.
Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment