Re: Coffee responsible for global warming

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:49:02PM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> And we have the opposite sorts of numbers on the west coast.

Yes, and neither is indicative of climate change in either direction,
which is why my original point had nothing do with that, and was instead
snark directed at the pols crowing over massive snow in DC this winter.

As to AGW, I'm sure many people don't have the intellectual capacity
to grasp it, just as they don't grasp evolution, plate tectonics,
or other large-scale/long-term phenomena, doubly so those with large
stochastic components..  They would rather indulge in wishful thinking,
religious dogma or political theater than do the hard work of mastering
the underpinning science and mathematics, and the even harder work
of devising and implementing effective strategies to deal with it.
I'm sure there's a lovely future career for them on the Texas School
Board or some other organization with an affirmative action hiring plan
for primitive subhumans.  (Glen Beck University, perhaps?)  There they
can wax eloquent about a several-thousand-year-old earth, the coexistence
of human and dinosaurs and other quaint, laughable concepts espoused
only by inferior people.

Meanwhile, those equipped with functioning analytical minds and 
adequate mathematical literacy [1] have long since noticed that a quietly
disturbing number of climatic predictions labeled as "excessive" or
"unreasonable" or "alarmist" have already been surpassed.

---Rsk

[1] I think that approximately the equivalent of a BS in math is
required to comprehend most of the research, although of course this
varies.  Some is understandable with only basic calculus while some
of it requires quite a bit more.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.