The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If Mr. Wigley's right, then using sources that emit no particulates, like nuclear and natural gas, will not make a major difference in averting near-term changes in the climate caused by carbon dioxide. But then—and here's the part that most media outlets failed to discuss when reporting on the Wigley study—widespread use of renewables such as wind and solar won't help much, either.
Flunkie, scientists gave you devices that let you fly (even to the moon), obliterate cities, make cats glow in the dark, see people around the world or at night, move mountains, or harness the power of the stars (albeit in a $50 billion experimental facility, or briefly and unpleasantly). That's like 90% of all comic book superpowers right there. The consequences mainly are A) you're going to have to lug a lot of pricy equipment around and B) you're going to have to pay taxes to (directly or indirectly) support millions of engineers and scientists who will create, design, build and repair the source of your superpowers. Oh, and C) those devices will probably come with a hell of a lot of toxic side-effects.
"A priori theory trumps and corrects experience (and logic overrules observation), and not vice-versa....Hence, once a theoretical insight has been grasped it can be employed as a constant and permanent standard of "criticism," i.e., for the purpose of correcting, revising, and rejecting as well as of accepting historical reports and interpretations. For instance, based on theoretical insights it must be considered impossible that higher taxes and regulations can be the cause of higher living standards. Living standards can be higher only despite higher taxes and regulations. Similarly, theoretical insights can rule out reports such as that increased consumption has led to increased production (economic growth), that below-market-clearing (maximum) prices have resulted in unsold surpluses of goods, or that the absence of democracy has been responsible for the economic malfunctioning of socialism as nonsensical."
...in order to refute a theoretical proposition (in contrast to a hypothetical one) another, even more fundamental theoretical argument is required, just as another mathematical or logical proof or argument is required (and not "empirical evidence") in order to refute a mathematical or logical theorem.
« Older R. Crumb's Pioneers of Country Music... | Celebrating pornographers who ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt