Hero of Excellence wrote:
Dimrill wrote:
No, they'll continue to deny it exists. They have the same pro-ignorance mentality that young Earth Creationists and Holocaust deniers do. They'll fart on about "dubious science" whilst only having a secondary school level education.
... Ooof!
Ooh, put those claws away and have a saucer of milk. Assuming you were referring to people like me, then yes, I do indeed lack a university education (not from choice, I might add), but so what? I have the intelligence and discernment that I was born with at least, and have garnered knowledge via other means, principally via the 'real world' as it were. I could mention here that I seem to have done okay out of this approach; without wishing to be unduly immodest, the 'fruits of my mind' so to speak have benefited many and I am proud of my technical, as well as commercial achievements. I'd add of course that plenty of people I know don't know their arse from their elbow from having received the benefit of going to Uni, albeit that is not to say that I am anti-education, far from it. I've talked about little else these last 5 years. But on the other hand, why should I go on the defensive? I've nothing to prove, not here at least.
I scanned that article and suffice to say that that it "proves climate change exists and is completely man-made" is an exaggeration. Of course, for my part, I've never claimed that
climate change itself does not exist; I merely
question the assertion that it is man made, as opposed to via some other process such as the variability of the sun, which is understood to a rudimentary extent. I mean, the Romans grew vines and made wine in what is now the UK some 2,000 years ago; we've had Ice Ages of course and much more recent, but pre- Industrial Revolution climate change as well. No-one was trundling around in 4x4s back then; Perkies mentions and links other stuff in his post and there is yet further evidence of the historic variability of polar ice caps on Mars etc. etc.
Even if we accept accept the global warming hypothesis in its entirety and also that it is entirely man made, precisely what good would be achieved by the UK unilaterally shooting itself in the foot as a 'moral example' to the Chinese, Indians and Americans, let alone a whole bunch of developing nations who, quite understandably, would like to have their own share of refrigerators, power stations etc.? Does anyone who has the slightest understanding of fundamental human nature honestly believe that this will be effective? Even if you subtracted the entire CO2 output of the UK from the global total, then even according to current theory, this will still make bugger all difference. So yeah, I guess the recognition of these basic, pragmatic truths, as opposed to the milk-and-honey cloud cuckoo wishlist of some quarters, makes me 'right wing scum' or whatever.
I would continue but there's precisely no point. I really can't be arsed with the whole hysterical, pseudo-religious zealotry that comes with it.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong