You know, there’s a well know strategy in Politics, that drawing attention to your opponents arguments against you merely promotes them further. So you have to wonder what Richard Black was thinking about when he decided to tweet this from his BBC account.
Richard Black @BBCRBlack
In Washington? Want to make $500 by manifesting an infant-school level grasp of climate impacts? bit.ly/x0gN9I
11:55 AM – 7 Jan 12
To be honest, the tweet is so short that you can’t really comprehend what Richard’s point out. If he’d read the post and the subsequent linked items, it would be more obvious that the “infant-school” level grasp would relate to the claims the glaciers would disappear in just a few years.
I presume he’s passing comment on the concept that glaciers drip in one place, but by submitting this post he’ll then encourage people to read this contained article that contains a lot more damaging details. So I can only assume that either Richard never got to that part in the article. Or figured his comment would taint anybodies opinion of the post.
Sure, it’s stupid to work out drip by drip. But there are some really hard facts about glaciers that are NOT melting and some that are actually increasing. The point being that climate is a hell of a lot more complicated than even Richard Black is making out and the we don’t have a clear picture is valid. And also a good reason why further study and not legislation is required. But then this has long since become a political rather than scientific debate.