On the Climate Change “Hoax”
Here’s a video that an intelligent, well-educated and well-meaning friend sent me, which “smashes global warming as a hoax,” and came with the proviso “I don’t want a big debate on this.”
Well that’s a good start. Who really wants a debate on this subject, large or small?
The speaker’s initial points are:
Climate change is a religion, i.e., it can’t be discussed. The American Physical Society claims that evidence for global warming is incontrovertible, which means that it can’t be talked about in polite society.
Saying that the evidence for something is incontrovertible does not mean it can’t be discussed, and I doubt any serious scientist believes that there should be no further conversation on the subject. If anyone wants to offer a cogent argument to the effect that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is false, bring it on. But be prepared to support it without reliance on irrelevant and immediately dismissible claims, which constitute essentially all I’ve seen from climate deniers over the years.
The speaker’s second point, and this is where he lost me completely, is that, “All this began with Al Gore.” Oh my. The initial theory of the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gases was propounded in 1896, and a ton of work on the subject had been accomplished by the time Al Gore was studying algebra in 8th or 9th grade. As I said above, I’m willing to listen, but I have to admit that there are times when a speaker says something so inane that I wish I were watching reruns of “I Love Lucy.” This is such a time.
He then goes into his main thesis, that the slow increase in the Earth’s temperature is still just about 1 degree C. About which he says, “I think is insignificant.” He thinks it’s insignificant, where virtually everyone who’s spent his life analyzing the subject thinks otherwise? How impressive is that? If I told you that I thought that the Monroe Doctrine was the single most important concept in U.S. history, wouldn’t you be likely to ask why my thoughts on the matter were of any great importance?
In my mind, all the discussion of climate change goes back to what 18th Century Scottish philosopher David Hume left us: “We always disbelieve the greater miracle.” So what strikes you as more “miraculous?” That tens of thousands of scientists working for half a century have almost unanimously accepted the theory of AGW and that therefore, you and I should accept it too? You do have another choice: These scientists are corrupted by money, and have sold their moral and intellectual integrity so that they can afford lavish vacations and summer homes.
Yikes.
Craig,
Why is it when ever GW supporters and advocates discus the ramifications of climate change, the take the most coherent, sensible arguments to support their position, and contrast those with the least acceptable, incoherent and less credible position espoused by opponent to GW ?
The main complaint by Climate skeptics doesn’t concern the actual science, or even the scientists. The primary concern is that the science has become deliberately distorted to serve the political ambitions of leftist ideologues, commercial lobbyists, fraudsters, dreamers and fanatical “crusading’ advocates.
Since the overwhelming number of supporters and demonstrators have no real scientific or in depth knowledge, they would appear to be accepting a garbled scientific theory on ‘belief’ alone !
Naturally, such followers are more akin to religious fanatics than rationally following any scientific thinking.
Rational debate becomes difficult with people who announce “the debate is over ‘, and call for criminal charges against dissenters !
I note you still repeat the demonstrable falsehood “tens of thousands of scientists working for half a century have almost unanimously accepted the theory of AGW”,.
As I have previously demonstrated, no such consensus exists. It’s a media distortion created to give a totally different meaning to the original observation. Yet, you still repeat it because it sounds like it should be true !
Curiously, the very issue you raise couldn’t be more timely in my personal life. Currently, I’m enjoying the experience of a once in a lifetime gathering of our far flung extended family at our ancestral home in the UK.
An argument has developed between my daughter and her neices and nephews, which has spread to many younger cousins. When I say her nieces and nephew, they are all the same ages since she is the daughter of my second wife.
My eldest son’s older children are now entering University, and attend a University with a more radical history and culture. My daughter reflects the more conservative opinions formed by her schooling and greater exposure to how the real world works.
Her relatives espouse theories and ideals, while she has always been encouraged to participate in the practical implementation of environmental programs.
The cause of the ferocious debate finally focused on the plight of the Australian Great barrier Reef.
The Australian Great Barrier Reef is a would class natural treasure. It’s therefore surprising that so little accurate information is know about the reef, even in Australia.
The reef has been the subject of literally thousands of books, documentaries, scholarly papers etc, most of these are steeped in errors or misconceptions.
The Reef is a favourite for GW enthusiasts.
Naturally, the fact that my son’s children grew up thousands of miles for the reef (or any ocean) and have never actually seen the reef , hasn’t stopped them lecturing my daughter ( who has visited the reef many times and met with scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the reef) about the imminent destruction of the reef due to GW.
As an experiment to keep the peace, I have offered make available 8 places for these young people to join a scientific group studying the reef using our motor-sailing vessel which is specially built to cope with ocean and coastal sailing.
After a lot of persuasion, I managed to persuade my son and his wife to join the expedition as a chance for a well deserved holiday. to even up the numbers, my brother’s middle son will join the expedition as he wants to tour Australia, pacific and Asia as a gap year before entering Qxford. The other place will be filled by a friend of my daughters whose parents recently died in tragic circumstances.
The task I’ve set them is to investigate the veracity of the environmentalist and AGW advocate, Dr David Suzuki’s documentary where he claims that:
1) Coral bleaching (dead coral) of Morton Bay in the south of the reef is cause by pollution or AWG, or other causes.
2) Oceanic warming is the principal cause extinction for coral and marine life on the reef.
3) Global warming is dramatically increasing sea levels to unprecedented height.
They will have free access to the 11 scientists, but in return must serve as go-fer for the scientists.
Naturally with the temperature outside in the UK at 4 c, and bitter cold rain, the offer of holiday in the sun was accepted with alacrity !
Mostly, I hope the experience will prove bonding, but it should be an interesting experiment.
@MarcoPolo
Haha.
MarcoPolo I see that you have already made 2 well considered and evocative postings on 2GreenEnergy today.
Heaven help me if they are a reliable guide to what you have in store for us for the remainder of 2017! I am going shopping right now to arm myself with a new pair of reading glasses; a thesaurus; and a large box of headache tablets to help get me through your 2017 catalogue relatively unscathed.
You have definitely hit the ground running mate!
Have you been over indulging in Xmas cheer and home-made rum soaked, brandy infused, wine dipped, plum puddings during the “silly season” by any chance?
Best wishes for an inspired 2017.
PS. I have spent 50 years (on and off) sailing, navigating and diving on the reef and doing short-handed blue water yacht deliveries. If you are ever in need of a first mate, call me.
LOL
Lawrence Coomber