My cousin sends me this:
On CNN's homepage (cnn.com), under the Science header, they have an article called "Katrina reignites global warming debate." It's not a very good article, but at least they're carrying something.
Actually it's a completely shitty article. Take this one sentence:
"On Web logs, scientists and environmentalists in the United States and Europe sparred over the possible connection."
Totally unlikely. Environmentalists and scientists are in agreement. You'll notice that "enviromental news" is now in the science section. Rather than on the front page where it should be. I've noticed this trend...
The "conclusion" of the article sucks too.
I found the same strangely similiar yet different AP article over at yahoo (under the science section). Would have preffered to have seen it a few days ago. It's a pretty "fair and balanced" (trademark) article, giving perspective to both sides of the controversy. But one must remember one side can be wrong.
My other cousin visiting Tokyo, sums up nicely:
"People won't understand the mistake they've made [in allowing Bush to be elected] until they are standing in the rubble of their own homes"
realistic gas mileage. (How actual and manufacturer stated mileage are different)
1:37:20 AM 
|
