{"id":11365,"date":"2012-07-19T22:56:33","date_gmt":"2012-07-19T22:56:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=11365"},"modified":"2012-07-19T22:56:33","modified_gmt":"2012-07-19T22:56:33","slug":"look-i%e2%80%99m-sorry-to-be-so-blunt-ii-all-you-need-is-math","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=11365","title":{"rendered":"Look, I\u2019m sorry to be so blunt — II: all you need is math"},"content":{"rendered":"

[ by Charles Cameron<\/strong> — global warming, global curriculum ]
\n.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

you can turn an aircraft carrier pretty fast -- but the human population?<\/p><\/div>.<\/p>\n

Bill McKibben<\/strong> has an article out in Rolling Stone<\/em>, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math<\/a>, in which he says: <\/p>\n

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, no you don’t.<\/p>\n

You need something closer to global understanding. Once you’ve gathered — via that “little math” — that we’re not on a sustainable track, you’ll need to understand a few other things. Like:<\/p>\n

\n