TorgoX loves to say nonsensical and insupportable things like "Bush is a fascist." Oh, he doesn't come right out and say it, because saying what you mean is so gauche.
But really, my point in writing is to rebuke his silly attack on global warming skeptics. In this case, something brand new pops up, and he expects people to immediately recognize it as proof of some case. He decries that people should actually take time to study the evidence. It's amazing to me that people can take this stance at the same time they criticize people for supposedly ignoring science. He is, in fact, asking people to ignore science by jumping to conclusions about what this evidence means.
Take his sentence, "The data from the icecores will be denied." Maybe, but maybe that will be because it is actually flawed. Who can say, before the fact? '"More research" will be needed.' Maybe because the initial research was incomplete.
I could make equally damning charges of the other side. How about: the data from the icecores will be said to prove that global warming is caused by man. They will say no more research is needed, that the case has been proved absolutely.
I take it back, that is not equally damning, it's more damning. And at least as true.
And as side note, the title of that article, "900,000-year-old ice may destroy US case on Kyoto," is false. The case against Kyoto was never that we don't need to reduce pollution, but that Kyoto was a piss-poor way to do it, for many reasons, including -- but not limited to -- the fact that "developing nations" were significantly exempted, and that the U.S. would be harmed more than most developed nations in that the baseline data used for reduction targets was taken just before the latest U.S. economic boom, which makes U.S. targets far greater -- even proportionate to the amount of pollution produced -- than the others.
You could make the case, perhaps, that the U.S. should have to reduce proportionally more because it is the baseline that matters, and it is just unlucky for the U.S. that it has so much further to go. But then why not make a similar argument for developing nations? Clearly, there are some factors that are, if not more important than the need to reduce pollution, mitigating of it, but they pretend -- in the case of the U.S. -- that reducing pollution is all that matters, so suck it up!
Of course, the greatest argument against Kyoto is simply that the U.S. doesn't need an international treaty to fix its problems, and therefore we are better off doing it on our own. I'd vote against it for that reason alone. But I'm cool like that.