That perennial verbal
battle over the existence of climate change continued in The Daily Examiner letters
section right up to the end of last year.
These views were published on 14, 17 and 23 December 2015 and, as usual Perring and Ibbotson didn't let little things like science and historical fact get in the way:
Ted's a believer
TED Strong is that
fanatical, one-eyed believer in the IPCC version of anthropological causes for
climate change who hails from up river and John Ibbotson is the more
liberal-minded sceptic from the lower river with an open view on the science
pertaining to IPCC modelling and its overall veracity.
Ted Strong would well
know that the IPCC "bible" has been rewritten many times to cover up
some of the more elaborate porkies put forward by many of the elite scientists.
I notice Ted Strong uses
the words "almost and probably" when stating "almost every
mainstream climate scientist on the planet" and, when addressing the
matter of whether scientists can tell the difference between steam, smoke and
CO2, he says, "I think they probably can".
That is typical, never a
definite statement, always it's almost, probably, perhaps, maybe, could occur,
may happen, appears to be, and so on.
Will there ever be a
climate change disciple who will stand up on his hind legs and say the words,
"I swear on my life that I am absolutely certain beyond all doubt that
what the IPCC predicts is going to happen, will happen".
Move over Tim Flannery!
Fred Perring
Halfway Creek
Denying reality
At last, after decades
of procrastination, and despite the urging of Clarence Valley 'experts' who
assure us climate change is a 'con', the Paris climate deal has been signed and
delivered, giving us hope for a cleaner, more sustainable future.
Yet still the
anti-climate change rubbish continues to be published on your letters to the
editor page.
For example Fred
Perring's letter (DE 14/12) harangues Ted Strong for his pro-climate change
beliefs, describing him as a "fanatical one-eyed believer".
Coming from Fred, that
gave many of us a good laugh, because anyone who has read Fred's on-going
diatribes would have to put that comment in the "pot calling the kettle
black" category.
Never have I encountered
anyone as one-eyed and unwilling to accept a contrary opinion than Fred, with
the possible exception of John Ibbotson, who Fred describes as a
"more liberal-minded sceptic".
For several decades,
thousands of climatologists, and scientists have contributed to the enormous
body of evidence that now exists, warning us of the realities of climate
change.
In Paris, the United
Nations, the political leaders of more than 200 countries, and the leaders of
the world's major religions, joined in accepting that scientific evidence, and
have vowed to work together to clean up our collective act.
With that overwhelming
endorsement of the science, we have to marvel at the egos of those who, with no
relevant qualifications whatsoever, continue writing letters, not
only denying the reality
of climate change, but ridiculing anyone asking that action be taken to reduce
atmospheric pollution.
John Edwards
South Grafton
Who is denying
reality?
Thank you John Edwards
(17/12) for the compliment. Top of the class. Wow!
As Einstein once
remarked that "No matter how great my theory is, if one person can
demonstrate that it is wrong then it's back to square one."
Taking six of the
AGW-green theories and see how they've stood up in practice:
The sea levels are going
to rise 12 or 25 or 100m. So far they've risen about 0.25m in the last 150
years.
In Oz it's never going
to rain again so we must build desalination plants. Oops. Lots of rain and
floods and the dams are over flowing.
Get your kids to play in
the snow because in 10 years there won't be any. Really!
The oceanic islands are
going to be swamped resulting in 20,000,000 eco refugees. So far it has been
found that most are stable or increasing in size, and number of accepted
eco-refugees stands at zero.
That there will be
worldwide famine because of all this CO2. Plants love CO2 and the world's food
production continues to grow.
Temperature: The AGW
folk rely on 100 computer models, based on green theory and CO2.
When compared to the
actual satellite temperatures (which are hard to fiddle) 99% of the models
can't get within two standard deviations of the actuals. In other words they're
crap.
I could go on with more
but you get the idea.
John, it would be
appreciated if you could respond with some of the great AGW theories from years
ago, which have actually been proven to be scientifically correct in practice.
I won't hold my breath.
And John you obviously
don't understand the difference between science, politics, religion and the
power of money, which drives this AGW shemozzle.
John Ibbotson
Gulmarrad
No comments:
Post a Comment