Originally posted by SpastiGovwell, i guess we won't be hearing any more about "the consensus" on these forums.
Following is an excellent article highlighting the absurdity of anthropogenic global warming theory and how scientists themselves become fanatics when poisoned by political considerations:
No "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming.
In 1975, Newsweek magazine warned us that climate scientists were unanimous in their view that imminent global cooli ...[text shortened]... y of Oklahoma.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2005/Feb.%2012.htm
Let me get this right.
The article says there is no consensus and then tries to show that a consensus doesn't indicate truth?
Is this article really trying to tell me that the global warming consensus can be ignored because Galileo appears to have been right even though everyone thought he was wrong? It may be true that everybody CAN be wrong but it is also true that they usually are not.
The article also says "Every natural disaster that occurs, including the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia, is immediately linked with climate change, no matter how tenuous or absurd the connection". This statement is itself remarkably tenuous and absurd. Only people ignorant of even the basic facts would make such a claim.
I don't hold a strong position either way on this issue but the stupidity of some of the argument I see against a human contribution to climate change are astounding.
Originally posted by WheelyWhenever an "issue" is big enough to be discussed by people who actually know nothing about it or by generally stupid people then you will get stupid arguments. This effect is greatly magnified when the issue in question is perceived to be a threat.
..... but the stupidity of some of the argument I see against a human contribution to climate change are astounding.
What is interesting though is that even highly educated people or people who seem to be otherwise sensible will come up with the most blatantly stupid arguments when the threat factor is big enough.
I have seen this effect with:
1. HIV victims or people who think they may be victims
(I have heard senior politicians, university graduates etc denying the existence of the disease)
2. Creationists.
(I am yet to see a single creationist website that isn't riddled with outright and obvious lies that the writers clearly don't believe themselves.)
3. Climate change deniers.
(I think it has to do with the fear that doing something about it will negatively impact the economy).
