I don't know about you, but I'm completely confused about climate change. The 'Warmists' exude that smug, arrogance of the self righteous soft Left if you dare to question whether man is actually contributing to this latest rise in global temperatures. And their use of the term 'Denier' for those with an opposing view is a cynical attempt to mimic the 'Holocaust Denier' label, thus anointing themselves with some sort of divine correctitude. Their palpable disdain for anyone with an opposing view irks me.
The 'Sceptics' seem almost rabid in their screaming diatribes attempting to undo the logic used by the Warmists. They all seem to be hysterical, to the point of madness. I struggle with the reality of hitching my intellect to their tow bar.
So where does this leave me?
Well I'd bought climate change. But had doubts. Then Climategate came along. And my doubts have grown. I want my scientists to be free, fair, logical, academic and neutral not lobbyists for a cause, surrounded by allegations (which on the face of it stand up) and thus forced to ‘stand down’ – aka known as asked to fuck off.
Generally, I take the view that governments and scientists don't tend to lie about the big stuff. But they do make stupid errors and pander to irrational and ill-informed public opinion: the ridiculous fuss over microwave ovens when they arrived, the ludicrous nonsense about the safety of mobile phones and their masts, the crazy madness of the Y2K bug, MMR etc - need I go on.
So, I really enjoyed this post on Devil's Kitchen. It was the first really logical attempt by a Sceptic to work the argument through. He seemed to be getting somewhere near to common sense.
1. A scientific and political consensus exists in favour of climate change but the science is far from settled.
2. Before we start down the expensive road of changing everything in the world, actually before the scientific case is proven, should we not explore whether just coping with the impact is cheaper?
Right now, I'm just confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment