A professor of biology questioned why those crazy global warming deniers could possibly refute her position that global warming is responsible for the recent tornado outbreaks in the middle of the United States. Let's look that statement over again. A biologist is asking why people don't agree with her about meteorology based upon climatology. Because when my back hurts, I'm heading to my eye doctor because he's cheaper. This lady is like the character in "The Hangover" who keeps calling himself a doctor when he's a dentist. And she doesn't understand why I don't just roll over and accept her opinion.
Of course, there is always the fact that most meteorologists I've seen opine on the subject relate the tornado and severe weather outbreaks to La Nina, a cooling of Pacific waters. But then, I'm no biologist, so I won't tell you what to think either, I'll just give you the information I have and you can decide (I encourage you to do a search on that independent of the only article I'm linking to to further educate yourself, as I do).
Now I will disagree with the first article in that NPR is not coming out and staking an official position as far as I can tell. She seems to be just an editorial voice that reflects the general editorial positions of NPR. I do wonder though, how a scientist who can't imagine how someone might have a different conclusion than her own can truly be a scientist. She sounds more like what atheists say to stereotype clergy to me. The only reason I bring this up is a wonderful friend of mine often depends NPR on its news coverage, and though I cannot disagree, I don't believe in funding it because I don't believe government should be funding any news, no matter how unbiased, or any editorial opinion, such as this person, who can't believe you might disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment