<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
It appears to me that the argument for AGW has been carried by pompous, preachy messengers, and regardless of the science behind it AGW needs better messengers if it is to have political life.
Shouting FILTHY FINITE FOSSIL FUELS, creating an adversary relationship with legacy fuel providers that actually heat our homes and move our cars, and belonging to the Gulfstream IV club does nothing in the political sense to bring home any message they may have.
The messengers are the problem with AGW. There must be a message somewhere between scientists, who are notoriously poor communicators, and scaremongers who do not walk the walk, where rationality exists on this issue.
I have not yet seen it.
Filed under: Education, Energy, Politics | Leave a comment »