By GottaLaff
The impact of this autonomic red-blue division often is amplified by the fact that we Americans are, by and large, technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate. Our national conversation is dominated by a culture of assertion rather than a respect for evidence reasonably assessed. Thus the endless wrangling over self-evident nonsense like creationism. [...]Please go read the whole thing here.
In fact, the scientific consensus on the issue is broad and deep. Nor does it rely on science done at the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia. Even if something untoward occurred there, we have two other scientific organizations providing baseline climate data -- both of which happen to be funded and directed by the U.S. government. One is NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the other is the Global Historical Climatology Network -- operated not by the EPA or the Interior Department but by the Commerce Department. Their historical data essentially matches that compiled at East Anglia.
So what are we to believe: that huge numbers of British and American scientists have entered into a conspiracy to dupe the world on climate change? Why? What would they stand to gain? [...]
Who benefits? Is it really any accident that Palin and most of the GOP lawmakers trying to discredit the science on global warming come from states enriched by petroleum production and industries with sizable carbon footprints?
Let's go all hypothetical for a moment. Even if global warming is a "hoax", how could we not benefit from the-- here comes that E word-- evolution of green power sources? Why is clean worse than dirty? Because critics say it's more expensive? Not in the long run. The health costs alone, resulting from inhaling and ingesting filth, are worth making the transition. And replacing finite supplies of fossil fuels with infinite quantities of sun and wind makes a whole lot of sense.
Unless, of course, you're Sarah Palin or the other beneficiaries of Big Oil.
.jpg)