Oh, says the scientist
Samuel Fahnrich
I don't know why, but there is a part of me that enjoys controversy among today's scientists. When it involves global warming, well, that's fair game for a blog entry. Finally, I can support what I've been thinking this whole time with, "current scientific evidence." The view of global warming being a natural development for our planet blown in our face due to political coverage in the media. For instance, the Ice Age occurred before the invention of a combustible engine and flooding occurred before Bush became president. Now, how do I plan to support this astonishing claim?
Starting off- here's a quote straight from the article, copied and pasted concerning the Great Miami Hurricane aka the Big Blow that hit in 1926. (I'm not kidding)
"Its path through the now heavily developed southern tip of Florida would have caused $157 billion in damage, followed by Katrina, whose toll was $81 billion. Six of the top 10 most damaging storms occurred before 1945."
Taken completely out of context, the back story is about whether or not it is financially "smart" to fix or adapt to global warming.
Similar to the Natives of the South West, it may be better to irrigate a few crops than to turn northern Phoenix into a rain forest. I'm not saying global warming is falsified, that would un academic, but I am saying that our current lifestyles may have to alter. It is not that Global warming wasn't going to occur, but that our actions did speed up the deadly rate.
To find out more, check out- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-adapt26mar26,1,6268751.story?track=rss&page=2
Or just come back to this next week when I go further in depth.
Heck, you could even leave a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment