UPDATE below
Why am I not surprised? When ‘skeptics’ conferences have such noted “climate scientists” as former astronauts as presenters, that should say it all. But for those who still take the ‘skeptics’ as having a strong case, hopefully these findings will convince them.
But probably not, since this is simply scientific evidence.
There are now at least three reasons to reduce our dependence on oil: Global warming, foreign policy and war, and ecological damage from increasingly risky technologies of extraction. Any one of them is powerful enough to make the case, not that the ‘skeptics’ care.
UPDATE
Salon has just published a piece where the London Times RETRACTS its story that the right latched on to as “proving” global warming science was corrupt. This retraction will convince absolutely no ‘skeptics’ because no facts will convince them. Hopefully it will do some good with honest people genuinely confused by the issue.
Read Previous Post