Re: [OT] : Great Global Warming Swindle

[David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kenneth Watt wrote:
>> Ah, no doubt your supposed God who created you will protect you :)
>
> I believe in that more than I believe that GW exists and there's
probably
> more proof to support the existence of a divine being. ;)

The thing about science is that you could (if you cared to do so - and
you'd
need to *really* care because it would take years) follow a logical course
from
observation to theory without the *need* to 'believe'. The problem you and
your
ilk have is an inability to weight information - you give the same credence
to
'Fred in the pub' as you do to someone whose life's work has been the study
of
atmospheric physics.

I wonder if you'd let Fred loose with a scalpel in the event of surgery? Or
would you rather trust a surgeon? (There are people who would turn to
Fred!)

You are, I'm afraid, as philosophically 'rational' as any creationist.


If you approached the question differently then I'd have more respect; eg:
Given
that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere and the albedo of
the
planet's surface and are likely to be affecting the climate; is the correct
ethical course of action to minimise this impact or to accept that we are
natural organisms and have the right to impact our environment and simply
plan
to deal with the changes?
Or at a personal level: "I don't have kids. My contribution to
pollution for the
next century will not accumulate due to my progeny. Screw you, I'll pollute
as
much as I like in my single lifetime.". So spake the TVR driver with
the heating
on and the windows open watching the sprinkler splash into the floodwater
;)

>
>> There was a fascinating piece in last weeks New Scientist about
Gore's
>> book and
>> how we've lost the ability to critically asses information fed to
us.
>
> Basically people accept the BS pushed to them through the media,
> substantiated or not.

Funnily enough, there was a piece the week before asking why people
'believed'
in conspiracy theories - one conclusion seemed to be that given an
irrational
'belief' there is no logical path to a rational debate; any
counter-argument
would be woven into the fantasy. Don't you worry about it, they probably
did
fake the moon landings.


The problem is when people like GW Bush take advantage of you to boost
profit in
their oil companies...

Not really HA though is it?

David