| |
|
| |
Nov 28, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
re: Request from John Veitch |
John Dierckx
| |
Hi John,
Thank you for this update, I would have to say however that while I agree on your notion of importance, I do not agree with your reading that global warming is a hoax.
Global warming is a more popular term used for what is actually meant: climate change.
I do not think that anyone in his right mind will deny that climate is changing, and it has been for as long as one can go back. The big issue here is whether or not that is caused by mankind or not.
That is an entirely different question and that is what the discussion is about. That is probably an even more important discussion if only because that data is indeed so inconsistent and there are good indications that it is not a human caused phenomenon. Why is this an important discussion, because leaping ahead without adequate and consistent data, the 'Gorian' viewpoint has been picked up and we are feeling the consequences of that in our wallets already in the form of ETS.
THat would still not be a problem if we were indeed paying carbon taxes, extra for saving light bulbs etcetera and we were indeed 'saving out planet'. But that is exactly what is being shown time and time again: this is not proven too be a man made issue and there is evidence that we would not even be able to cause climate change as humans even if we wanted to.
So what is happening here is that governments have found a new way to tax their citizens (families and corporations alike), without there being consistent data that we should 'suffer for our carbon emissions because they are destroying our planet', and that those taxes will actually be contributing to 'saving the planet.' It would make sense to me to at least make sure that data is consistent before you start taking drastic measures, which in New Zealand could seriously jeopardize the health of our most important economic sector, the primary sector and furthermore cause severe distress amongst citizens due to these taxes potentially and as it seems more likely by the day, without a probable cause.
What it all boils down to is that predispositions can be harmful to a good discussion. It is actually not that different as with the whole creation and intelligent design as well as christian debate.New discoveries appear to be going against the grain of what we thought was true, what had become common knowledge. Our world has grown up with the 'common knowledge' that there was no creator and that the stories about about God and Jesus were nothing more than myth. We were the result of chance and without any other purpose than procreation. New evidence however seems to contradict such a viewpoint more and more often. The more we learn the more unlikely it seems to become. It is the same with the climate change debate. That hurts and causes insecurities and in the case of climate change legal, compliance and financial pressure that may well be based on false or unreliable evidence.
I guess the best approach is to go there where the evidence is taking us, whether we like that direction or not, whether it is inconvenient or not, isn't that what science is really all about? Well in the case of climate change it appears that Gore's evidence is being exposed whether we like it or not, and with that the basis for all kinds of drastic measures, national up to UN level may well be based on nothing, how inconvenient this may be, especially for those that were already calculating their profits over the backs of people, businesses and nations.
Hopefully no offense taken but this is indeed a serious topic that already affects us all in more ways than we care to think about. Let's go where the evidence is taking us and be open for unexpected surprises, whether we like them or not.Private Reply to John Dierckx (new win) |
|
| |
|