National Review Visits Shrinking Alaska Glaciers (While Sipping Martinis)

As I've mentioned in another post, we have a resident doctor who relies on scientific scrutiny and outcomes to support how he manages his profession but finds it within his capacity to analyze and critique scientific data that's been provided on climate. I've, therefore, no doubt that any sound science presented is going to amend any of the anti GW positions, if this is the ilk of their base.

Furthermore, I was listening to a conservative radio program politicizing the topic. They were having a discussion about how liberals were concerned with GW when there are terrorists equipped to do us harm - stating further that we should be expending all of our energy on the latter and how ridiculous liberals are.

So we up against lay people that believe they have the capacity to perform scientific tasks and analysis as ably as specialized scientists and still others that believe that the United States doesn't have it within their capacity to manage two separate threats to our nation in balance. On the one hand we're talking about maintaining that which provides us with our subsistence and another that threatens our lives in another manner. These radio hosts discussed seriously that one is far more pressing than the other and that GW should be ignored. I've given up hope. There's absolutely no swaying these kinds of people with such narrowed vision.