11-25-2009, 08:20 AM
Why would anyone wanna debate the topic when the science is, uh, settled:
let the proliferation of hurt feelings and personal affronts commence.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It's amazing what fossil-fuel dollars will pay for.
11-25-2009, 08:51 AM
The glaciers are still melting. Sea level is still rising. The seas are still warming. Why is it that the Right believes that science should be simple, like some kid sitting on the floor building a house from blocks? Of course, the Right looks at everything that way, from their religion to their politics; We believe, therefore this is the way it is. No gray area. No questions. Everything is a matter of faith. I guess they got intellectually stuck at the Peter Pan level: Clap your hands and make it so!
All the reputable climatologists I've read have stated that they cannot tell us with certainty what the future holds. Who can? So is their science wrong because they can't read the future? We don't know what it is going to look like. We can look at the past, all the way back to the Eocene, and get some general idea of what it might look like, but can we know? Is our knowledge of Earth's climate so complete that we can pretty much set out a time-table for how it's going to unfold? Do we know what the tipping point is and what it will look like and what will happen once we cross it?
Look at how little we know about the oceans and their currents and cycles, and they are probably the largest determining factor for climate on the planet. We do know that they are the number one carbon sink on Earth and that they are rapidly reaching capacity, if not already beyond. We do know that higher carbon leads to higher acidity which will change the biomass in the oceans beyond our capacity to foretell. We know that we have overfished the oceans to such a mindless degree that climate change might push whatever is left to a terminal stage. There are whole populations of humans who rely on seafood as their basic protein. What do they do when it's gone?
The coral reefs are dying. We know that. Probably from changing acidity levels. As sea level rises, they will die faster and more completely. We also know those reefs are the foundation of an enormous food chain in the ocean. They generate much of the plankton biomass that uncountable creatures rely on for life. We are already seeing reductions in plankton in Antarctic seas and creatures are migrating, penguins heading North, for instance. Why don't you imagine what the outcome could be when there is no plankton left in the ocean? Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the Right simply lacks imagination.
What we do see, in fact, are glaciers retreating and sea levels changing. Just the loss of those glaciers should be alarming enough; They provide a vast population of humans (and other life, including flora and fauna, i.e., agriculture) with their water. It's easy enough to tell the future of what will happen when those people run out of water; They will die or move to a place where there is still water. I'll let you picture for yourself what happens when millions of people start migrating to find water. I feel confident that even an unimaginative rightard can make up a mental picture for that. Just think of immigration on a vast scale never seen before in human history and no green cards.
Of course, the most important meter reading for the Right is the one that reads Exxon Mobil's profit (which no doubt helped to fund this cartoon). That is the meter that we can't allow to dip.
11-25-2009, 10:10 AM
Is it funny? I didn't watch it....Someone tell me it's funny first...then I'll watch it