| |
|
| |
Nov 19, 2009 8:15 pm |
|
re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths |
Thomas Holford
| |
> ReduceGHGs (2 weeks ago) . . . Try reading a book or two about how humans affect the biosphere. Ocean acidification and its consequences, the carbon cycle, and positive reinforcing mechanisms of climate change are all important to learn about. “Just say NO” is an irrational naysayer approach.
I think this illustrates perfectly that the "Global Warming Debate" really reduces down to Socrates vs. the Sophists.
Global Warming Believers assert over and over "there is no debate", "the science is settled", "read OUR book; DON'T read THEIR book (THEIR book is irrelevant)". There is a "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring. Consensus suffices as "truth". The actual truth is irrelevant. These are sophistic positions.
Global Warming Skeptics DO read the Believers books. They HAVE to read them in order to rebut them. The skeptics SEEK debate ("Socratic dialogue") and search for the truth. The Believers, in contrast, avoid debate. Al Gore is famous for NEVER engaging in open debate. There are even groups offering sizeble cash prizes or donations to charity if Gore would agree to a debate. He won't.
The Global Warming Skeptics really fill the role of Socrates' truth seeking in the climate debate.
The Global Warming Believers need to prove that EVERYTHING they assert about human caused warming is true. The Skeptics need to assert only that at least one essential element of global warming is NOT proven.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|