What makes me so angry about these people is the sheer idiocy and dangerous nature of the denial. If science was telling you that you had a horrible bacterial infection, would you take anti-biotics, or would you instead just make up some shit about how you don’t think science has all the answers and you are just going to rub some magic sticks on it and hope for the best. What if science told you that gravity is likely to cause your death should you jump from a high point, would you claim to know best and jump anyway? What is science told you the earth was warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, and that this warming has a very good chance of destabilizing the climate, causing massive human suffering and perhaps the collapse of our civilization. Would you stick your head in the sand and keep going about your day?
Why do people have no trouble trusting science for things like medicine, gravity, material sciences, optics, and a whole host of other things, but have so much trouble getting on the science bandwagon when it comes to things like evolution and global warming? Can someone explain that to me?
The climate change deniers and this is a most provocative and insulting terminology are those of you who blindly think that the climate would not change if man stopped burning fossil fuels. I copy below my reply to a recent e-mail received from you. This is the response of an educated, rational, average fellow in the street. Let us have a debate sure, but cut out the drama, the rhetoric and the doomsday nonsense, please !
I am an engineer, graduated in 1969 and still busy, in fact currently working as consultant to the renewables sector, construction of wind farms offshore.
My exposure to this industry has opened my eyes to the fundamental economic and operational weaknesses of the assumptions on which it is based, plus the heavy environmental impact, particularly onshore of the wind turbines.
I have also read much on global warming and say openly that my findings indicate a cynical distortion by the IPCC and Mr Al Gore of the fundamental science and scientific observations behind their arguments. May I respectfully refer you to Ian Plimer’s book – of Heaven and Earth as a start?
The problem is this. That the ‘Global Warming’ scare has seriously distorted the prioritisation of environmental challenges we all face. To a dispassionate observer the biggest single challenge is supply of fresh water. The next is destruction of rain forests, then arguably the reduction of fish stocks followed by the scourge of malaria. All these to my mind should take priority of investment before the man made global warming theory.
But IPCC and Al Gore have helped create a gigantic investment drive that takes much needed funds from more serious problems.
Maybe some simple statistics may help raise some questions in your mind? 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which comprises of perhaps some 10% of global greenhouse gases. The main source of CO2 is the oceans. Mans burning of fossil fuels accounts for less than 10% of CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2, a clear non-toxic and odourless gas is taken up by plants as a nutrient releasing in turn oxygen. Some graphs show the increase in CO2 actually follows warming of the globe rather than leading it.
Does the earth’s climate change? Yes. Does it warm and cool over the years, decades, centuries, millenia? Yes it does. What is the main driver of earth’s climate? – The sun.
Am I arguing we should not bother about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? No. Of course this is good thing, I look forward to electric powered cars and less pollution and less dependence on politically unstable and unfriendly countries for supply of oil and gas. But as a priority? Do you know for example the financial impact on a poor African village of being asked to reduce its dependence on fossil fuel and worry about its ‘carbon’ footprint?
I just hope I may have raised some thoughts, questions in your minds!