If we have a consensus, we must have the truth, right?
Just remember, folks, science text books are re-written all the time.
On a large scale it’s really basic and simple. Water locked into ice is removed from the atmosphere’s energy budget. You can’t get any real indication over the course of a year or two, or even a decade or two, and certainly not in a small local area. Nonetheless, more available water WILL over time mean the great desert areas will grow smaller and the alpine treeline will rise. Less available water will have the opposite effect. You won’t see it in terms of states or small countries, nor in years. But looked at in terms of climactic zones (tropical, temperate, etc.) over centuries, it’s pretty obvious.
So I feel like I gotta ask: If the earth is getting warmer, why isn’t the Sahara getting smaller and wetter? Now there’s an “inconvenient truth” for ya.
I have no trouble believing that the weather fluctuates. I have no trouble believing that we could easily be rapidly entering either a hot or a cold cycle in the weather. Where I have an extreme problem is when the rich and self serving power elite (hello Mr. Gore) insist that the only cure for the problem is one that leaves their lives intact and makes ours poorer.
I have a problem trusting the “expertise” on ANY subject coming from a group of people who have consistently shown that they are quite willing to lie on any subject at all if it will help them gain more personal power, and I certainly don’t trust someone’s assessment of things that operate on a geologic timescale if that someone has consistently shown that their vision and attention span NEVER extends past the next election cycle.
To be fair, that description fits nearly all politicians of any party, not just liberal Democrats.
Stage 1, Denial: “I don’t care how much evidence you show me to the contrary, I’ll never believe that Al Gore couldn’t find his own ass with both hands and a map!”
Next entry: Great, now I'm disenfranchized too.
Previous entry: this'll give 'em fits!