Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I’ll address OB’s points (in my way). First, he’s absolutely right about climate change.
Second, and to Damien’s point about the scale of the Researchgate graph I posted: My point is that whatever’s happening on the magnified scale of the graph (which is what the doomsters always publish), is right at the top of the 140,000 year cycle. So, it’s gonna happen anyway.
Third, to jfman’s point about the oil giants. Yes, he’s right. The filthy lucre is all that big business cares about and there is no global legal framework that can control it. When the ocean warming (which is cyclical and not all down to man-made causes) knocks the Gulf Stream for six, then in our non-Volcanic region, heat pumps will be useless.
It’s the government that needs to join the dots (perhaps as well as certain others on this forum).
Old Seph.
|
Ah but is it Old Seph? He would provided objective proof and reasoned argument why Climate Change is not a clear and present danger.
This prompts the wider, more fundamental question: why is it that intelligent people do not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it that:
a) the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. In this case, the evidence that persuaded them he consensus is wrong is easily put forward. Of course, the next question is that why this clear, authoritative evidence has not convinced the people who dedicated their lives to this science?
b) they are fearful of being personally less wealthy if we address the issue
c) <insert excuse here>