A new study by a University of Michigan professor shows Americans between the ages of 32 and 52 - a group referred to as Generation X - have said they don’t really care when it comes to matters of climate change and the environment.
...
Out of the 2,924 people that responded, 41 percent said they were “disengaged” when it came to matters of climate change. Ten percent of them said they were dismissive or doubtful about the climate issue as a whole.
From Ann Arbor.com http://www.annarbor.com/news/generation-x-ambiguous-about-climate-change-study-shows/
I love coming home to an @ozgameshop parcel, containing Christmas presents and presents for ME!!!
------------------------------------------------------
lightsmade.com
Posted by: bloopsbreesip | November 20, 2012 at 10:50 PM
No, it was an article about how much oil might still be left urnergnoudd and about how improvements in oil recovery technology could improve the yield from wells from its current value of 35% to something closer to half. Maugeri offers the opinion that this could make oil wells productive for a century, but that is not the same as recommending the continuation of an oil-based economy for that long. It is particularly not the same thing as Scientific American arguing for such a continuation. I've previously pointed out that you overlooked the acknowledgment that climate was important in the 6th paragraph of the article. Here's the crowning paragraph of the article, which it appears you also overlooked. Note the very last sentence (emphasis added):To be sure, by 2030 we will have consumed another 650 billion to 700 billion barrels of our reserves, for a total of around 1,600 billion barrels used up from the 4,500-billion to 5,000- billion figure. Yet if my estimates are correct, we will have oil for the rest of the 21st century. The real problem will be how to use the remaining oil without wasting it through unacceptable consumption habits and—above all—without endangering the environment and climate of our planet.Let's also not lose track of why we're talking about this article. You pointed to the current Lemonick article and its polls and you pointed to this oil article from a year ago, and on that basis accused Scientific American of going soft or selling out on climate change. Accusations like that should at least be based on strong pieces of evidence, not ones like this, which you seemingly haven't read very closely but are trying to cram into a narrative of betrayal. Meanwhile, your accusation ignores that SciAm over this past year has continued to publish many articles about the fact of climate change and the need for cleaner, greener energy.You can connect any two dots that you like, but that doesn't make the line that you draw real.
Posted by: Sri | September 28, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Hi ShannonI'm glad you found it useful. It does take time and some ivsmnteent of effort at the start (it looks like your blog is quite new). If comments are important to you it's definitely worth taking the time to comment elsewhere (like you're doing!) and to link out to other bloggers many will pop over and comment if they see an incoming link.Meantime you might also like this article with some of the things I learned about comments in my first year of blogging.Good luckJoanna
Posted by: Siham | August 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Very good post. Made me realize I was totally wrong about this issue. I figure that one learns something new everyday.
Posted by: Nike Air Max | August 16, 2012 at 08:40 PM