The Ministry of Shadows

Last Five Entries

Gone, But Not Forgotten?
Friday, Jan. 20, 2012

What The Internet Will Look Like Under SOPA
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012

Fearsgiving Week
Monday, Nov. 21, 2011

Jesus Approves of Waterboarding
Monday, Nov. 14, 2011

Beware of Asteroids
Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011

Resources

FirstGov Portal

Legislative Database


Recommended Reading

Bindyree

Bruce Schneier

James Hudnall

Glenn Greenwald

D-Day

You Are Dumb


All links are current as of the date of publication. All content created by the author is copyrighted 2005-2010, except where held by the owners/publishers of parent works and/or subject materials. Any infringement of another's work is wholly unintentional. If you see something here that is yours, a polite request for removal or credit will be honored.



Al Gore Spit In My Soup

Monday, Jun. 05, 2006 1:33 AM

Well, not really.

It's my belief, however, that there are folks who will hear about An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's film about global warming, and simply tune out. Like President George W. Bush.

Even after last year, when America was hit by this ... this this uh ... this uh ... huge storm ... Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both storms achieving Category 5 status, there are folks who just shrug it off.

It's just a trend. It's a normal pattern. There is no possible way that human activity could have such a tremendous impact on the environment.

Based on what? Comparisons of the output of a volcano or a forest fire the pollution generated by a major city? What's with the moral relativism when the question is whether or not we have a lasting or significant impact on the environment?

Humans clear cut forests. We strip-mine pristine land. We start fires. We've destroyed valleys and entire ecosystems to build dams and reservoirs necessary to the needs of human communities but hardly an insignificant act of no consequence.

At its most basic, denying man can have a significant, lasting impact on the environment is a sense of scale. Our planet is so big, so vast, so varied, that it seems improbable, if not impossible, that we could ever do lasting harm.

At its worst, this denial is magical thinking of the worst kind, an inoculation against responsibility for our choices.

Gore's film states the case for global warming in a friendly, non-threatening way. The numbers and visible examples illustrate his case and suggest some grim outcomes for the future.

So I ask the sensible and rational question, what would it take for someone who doubts the existence of global warming to believe otherwise? And, given that answer, where does it stand in terms of being too late to do anything about it?



The Ministry has received 4 comment(s) on this topic.



Brin - 2006-06-05 03:21:54
Why do tree rings from thousands of years back and ice rings from MILLIONS of years back show the same patterns that we're seeing nowadays? Those rises and falls in temperatures weren't caused by industry because there wasn't any.

Minister - 2006-06-05 13:08:53
The film examines those 'patterns' and refutes the conclusion that this is the same-old same-old. And if Jerry Falwell doesn't believe in global warming, and George W. Bush doesn't believe in global warming, those are two excellent reasons to at least consider the possibility. Falwell's busy trying to bring about the Rapture (which, if THAT doesn't exist, just means bringing about the end of the world ... what's he gonna say, "Oh, sorry, I was wrong?"); Bush hires hack college kids to edit scientific documents.

John - 2006-06-05 14:48:58
Junk science, Bob, junk science. You know what GIGO means...

Minister - 2006-06-06 02:45:55
Both the presence/increase of population and industry makes any current trend different from those in the past; that's basic control of a science experiment. If the same conditions do not exist, the experiment is invalid. // We understand the basic mechanism of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reflecting solar radiation, affecting both land and water; this is why Venus is such a vacation spot.