Global warming. I suppose that I could agree with the critics of the theory that it is a cause of the day. Many who support it don’t know why. However, most critics don’t understand it either.
It seems like an issue with such large claimed effects would elicit an attempt by more folks to understand it. But most judgments are made in ignorance. Science has huge implications and the fact that most Americans don’t know or like science is making it hard for our democracy to address science related issues.
Rush certainly illustrates a boredom with the critical subject of science, and maybe that the right is especially uninterested in actually discussing the merit of policy, because they know the answer based on their “gut”. The main problem with American Conservatism.
Manzi says conservatives should believe in global warming, not because of ‘liberal scaremongering … but because of the underlying physics’ — which he apparently doesn’t grasp in the least. ‘All else being equal, the more carbon dioxide molecules we have in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets,’ writes Manzi.” Wrong! More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It’s just all part of the hoax.
He condemns Manzi, who is a critic of Kyoto and most left orthodoxy on global warming as a science know nothing, but does nothing to discuss the physics that doesn’t support global warming. I think he assumes his audience doesn’t need facts to reach a conclusion on global warming.
They know! In any case dealing with details of policy on a case by case basis undermines the goals of the ideology, less government always. No exceptions and no need to think in detail. Certainly a paragraph on how warming could mitigate itself by adding to cloud cover is just boring and redundant. It’s all pretty sad.