The following is an exchange between me and someone I'll call Matt. He has some interesting ideas about climate change... After his response, I didn't think I could take the discussion anywhere else. He's clearly a downer and therefore not amenable to reason.
Well constructed and very much in line with what I think on the topic, particularly the part about
The vested interests and the role of the big ball of burning gas above our heads in global warming.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html
Gee
I’m glad I get to give an extra 500 per year to the government though.
Matt
Matt, I think this debate is distracting you from a much
more significant dispute. The
real controversy is between those that
believe in the
Ice Wall and the downers – those believing in the Waterfall. They both have
photographic evidence:
Ice Wall:
Waterfall:
But
whose testimonial can we believe? Personally, I think
a
British Naval Officer’s account is very convincing:
It would be impossible to conceive a more
solid-looking mass of ice; not the smallest appearance of any rent or fissure
could we discover throughout its whole extent, and the intensely bright sky
beyond it but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached
southward.
This
debate is not simply an Antarctic concern, it has global ramifications that
also impacts on the “theory” of global warming. If warmists are correct, the
implications of an ice wall is
extremely concerning. I think downers are drawn
towards their “theory” more because of alarmist fear-mongering than they are by
empirical evidence.
It’s
even possible that their photo could have been faked!
Patrick
Hi
Partick,
Agreed,
global warming in all of its various extremist incarnations is distracting
us all from much more significant debates and issues.
It
is far more relevant deciding what to have for dinner tonight and we can
all really make a difference here.
In
light of my own experimentation and investigation it is just not possible
for me to deny that the earth is warming. Just
this morning I had to take about 2mil of ice off my car windows. This time last
year, it was probably more like 3mil.
My
position is more in line with that of the author of this article.
The
question that seems to be supressed at every debate on the issue is:
How
much is man kind contributing and how much is a natural cosmic or environmental
cycle?
The
very idea that
man kind
may not be directly responsible for global warming is
considered heresy! In science! According to
our politicians - the science of climate, the most chaotic system known to man,
is
decided, and
we're all to blame.
In
truth, what makes me most concerned is that people are
tired of hearing about it and
cannot fathom the thought that
perhaps they have been misled to such a gargantuan degree the very world will
never be the same.
It all just makes me so
HAPppy!
This
article was all about the global ramifications of warmist theories and the
rampant misuse/misinterpretation of so called "empircal" data so I
very much agree
with you - individuals will use populist interpretations of statistics to prove
whatever wacky theory pops into their heads.
84%
of all people know that.