British Democracy Forum - View Single Post - The "Global Warming would be good for us" thread.

Clippo · 09-01-2007, 03:48 PM

Besoeker,
You seem to be falling into the trap that I did several months ago. i.e. arguing in a pure, scientific & rational way with a small bunch of … well ‘Dolts’ is the politest word I can think of at the moment.

Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander based on the number of replies he generates. But no matter how many times his ideas are comprehensively squashed by the likes of you & me and others, he lets it die down again and then starts up another thread with a slight variation of the hoary old chestnuts in it. (It must be time for changing solar activity to be resurrected soon). Yet again, I could step-by-step refute his arguments in the first post of this thread but really I can’t be bothered anymore.

In an earlier thread I came to the conclusion that this GW debate mirrors very closely the Darwinian evolution debate of ca. 150yrs ago. When Darwin first announced it, most clear thinkers of the time immediately accepted it as the obvious answer to observed facts. So much so that TE Huxley, (I think), said ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Of course ‘vested’ interests, (aka the church), immediately tried to ridicule Darwin’s ideas. The rest is history. Today, only a miniscule proportion of the worlds population believe in the ‘creationist’ theory of evolution.

So what have we today is a sound explanation for many of the observed facts of the 20th century climate changes, as first argued coherently by James Hansen to the US congress in ca 1988. The ‘vested interests’ then were the US oil corporations & big business plus some evangelical Christians. Gradually, as true scientists sought real data to confirm (or deny) the GW hypothesis, slowly but steadily the truth converted more & more scientists, then world politicians, then ordinary commonsense people to the ‘man-made caused GW by CO2 emissions’ view.

As with any advance in human understanding of the natural world, or even the human world, a few ‘dolts’ will be left behind. These ‘dolts’, whatever their opinions, have several characteristics in common – a) they are a very small minority against massive mainstream opinion, b) they see themselves almost romantically as the last warriors against a perceived world domination order & c) have almost a pathological inability to open their minds to any evidence which might threaten their isolated ideas, & d) seize upon any scrap of ‘evidence’, however ridiculous, & without any commonsense questioning on their part to shore up their perverse ideas.

In conclusion, the world’s view on GW moves on, - nothing they say here in this forum, or probably anywhere in the world, (especially the corridors of power where real practical decisions will be made to try to save the world), is of any importance.

I, for one, will now let these dolts stir in their own fantasies – I’ve wasted enough time on them.

09-01-2007, 03:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,982	Besoeker, You seem to be falling into the trap that I did several months ago. i.e. arguing in a pure, scientific & rational way with a small bunch of … well ‘Dolts’ is the politest word I can think of at the moment. Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander based on the number of replies he generates. But no matter how many times his ideas are comprehensively squashed by the likes of you & me and others, he lets it die down again and then starts up another thread with a slight variation of the hoary old chestnuts in it. (It must be time for changing solar activity to be resurrected soon). Yet again, I could step-by-step refute his arguments in the first post of this thread but really I can’t be bothered anymore. In an earlier thread I came to the conclusion that this GW debate mirrors very closely the Darwinian evolution debate of ca. 150yrs ago. When Darwin first announced it, most clear thinkers of the time immediately accepted it as the obvious answer to observed facts. So much so that TE Huxley, (I think), said ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Of course ‘vested’ interests, (aka the church), immediately tried to ridicule Darwin’s ideas. The rest is history. Today, only a miniscule proportion of the worlds population believe in the ‘creationist’ theory of evolution. So what have we today is a sound explanation for many of the observed facts of the 20th century climate changes, as first argued coherently by James Hansen to the US congress in ca 1988. The ‘vested interests’ then were the US oil corporations & big business plus some evangelical Christians. Gradually, as true scientists sought real data to confirm (or deny) the GW hypothesis, slowly but steadily the truth converted more & more scientists, then world politicians, then ordinary commonsense people to the ‘man-made caused GW by CO2 emissions’ view. As with any advance in human understanding of the natural world, or even the human world, a few ‘dolts’ will be left behind. These ‘dolts’, whatever their opinions, have several characteristics in common – a) they are a very small minority against massive mainstream opinion, b) they see themselves almost romantically as the last warriors against a perceived world domination order & c) have almost a pathological inability to open their minds to any evidence which might threaten their isolated ideas, & d) seize upon any scrap of ‘evidence’, however ridiculous, & without any commonsense questioning on their part to shore up their perverse ideas. In conclusion, the world’s view on GW moves on, - nothing they say here in this forum, or probably anywhere in the world, (especially the corridors of power where real practical decisions will be made to try to save the world), is of any importance. I, for one, will now let these dolts stir in their own fantasies – I’ve wasted enough time on them.