Global warming research
conducted applying revolutionary
new seat-of-the-pants methodology
It's easy to be a global warming skeptic when you just want to sound tough. However businesses that have something to gain or lose by global warming are taking global warming very seriously indeed. Like insurance companies. And reinsurance companies. No scoffers at Munich Re. Read the article in Slate.
As usual, the political right is ignoring objective reality in order to support the profits of a handful of multinational corporations.
True, the ten commandments contain vital messages for today’s youth, like: “No graven images!” and “Keep the Sabbath holy!” Don't know what I would do without them commandments, no siree.
But on the other hand, saying that the thermometer is relentlessly rising, a proven scientific fact that no amount of right-wing propaganda can refute, THAT is not important. That is “junk science”. Glaciers are melting? A fluke!
So many Gates! This-Gate and That-Gate and the Other-Gate. So I decided to conduct an enquiry into global warming while avoiding any risk of data manipulation, such as that perpetrated by those horrid English scientists. (I'm still not sure what they are supposed to have done wrong.)
In a rapture of brilliance, I resolved to cut the Gordian knot by asking dozens of shopkeepers and farmers in a single town in Central America if it was now warmer than, colder than, or the same temperature as ten years ago. Without exception they all said it is now considerably warmer than ten years ago.
So I reported the results of my global warming research on a global warming skeptics' web site.
But, you guessed it: my methodology didn't cut the mustard either. The global warming skeptics were shocked, shocked! Shopkeepers! Farmers! Heaven forfend! Absolutely unacceptable!
You can’t win. Specifically, no matter what data you provide to prove global warming, it's never enough. I wonder why.
YOU CAN'T BEAT THE SHYTSEM