" I shared an interesting debate on Google+ the other day and when it was finished I'd realized that all my opinions and beliefs about Global Warming were summed up in this one short discourse that took an entire day to sort of resolve! It started when one of my followers posted a story from the Wall Street Journal (see link below) and I decided to respond. Not long after I received a reply from a fellow I will call George. He is not one of my connections and I knew nothing of him. Below is a direct copy and paste of that conversation."
Here is the article that started it.
(Nancy): Why is it that the Wall Street Journals article was polite and contained and the debunkers feel the need for this; "Wall Street Journal Publishes Pile of Crap on Climate" , "By suggesting that global warming is nothing to worry about, and portraying those who think otherwise as the semi-demonic hellspawn of some socialist conspiracy, tripe like this has truly damaging potential." The so called debunkers of skepticism are sounding more and more like a foul mouthed bunch of religious zealots. That worries me!
(George): Nancy, people get angry when they read nonsense posing as fact. Basic human instinct. I hope you appreciate the effort Andrew Glikson made to take this rubbish seriously long enough to refute it.
(Nancy): George, it sounds like you are justifying bad behavior because some people don't have the "facts" right, and that makes other people angry. Is this real life, or kindergarten?
(George): Time to give up concern trolling and read the point-by-point refutation.
(Nancy): I have lived thru several "This is the end of the world as we know it" events. The one thing they have all shared is the creation of human dissent, fevered religious zealotry, bullying, bigotry, foul language,hatred and fear. Global Warming is yet another politically powered threat to keep people under control and yes, make lots of money. We can make our environment much cleaner and healthier, thereby increasing the worlds prosperity, without politicians, taxes,scientists and foul mouthed writers. Imagine if the 4 billion of us all decided to pick up one piece of rubbish a day?
(George): Nancy do please read up on global warming. It's a scientific subject so it's documented out the wazoo with observations, equations, tests, and it's all on top of physics that anybody with school mathematics can grasp. And no picking up rubbish and putting it in a landfill somewhere will not solve the problem, even if we all did it every day. Substantially reducing carbon emissions will mitigate it, but not reverse its effects.
(Nancy): George, please don't assume my opinions on global warming stem from ignorance. I was a rabbit food eating, dirty tree hugging hippy trying to spread the word about the dangers of pollution when the awareness of greenhouse gasses first became known back in the seventies. I started living environmentally friendly long before it became popular and trendy to do so, and I was scorned for it. I was practicing and attempting to recycle decades before recycling bins turned up on every corner. My opinions do not stem from lack of knowledge, they stem from 40 years of experience being an intelligent participant in the bid to clean up our world. Perhaps this knowledge might carry some weight given the fickle nature of scientific consensus, pointing to Galileo by way of example. And if you don't think 4,000,000,000 people picking up one piece of rubbish a day would have a positive impact then I suggest you review high school mathematics.
(George): Yes, you were preaching. Have you in fact ever studied science? It sounds to me as if you don't even know the meaning of the question. On people picking up rubbish on one part of the planet and moving it to another, the overall environmental impact is going to be negative. Composting, now, would help, but you can't compost a metal can or a plastic bottle.
(Nancy): And so the insulting begins. Point proven!
(George): I'm saying you obviously haven't any knowledge of the science you're criticising. Remember I did ask but you were evasive. So, you don't think scientific knowledge would make you more able to deliver coherent, accurate criticism? You think it's insulting for me to suggest that?
(Nancy): To suggest that I do not possess enough intelligence to understand the question, "Have you in fact ever studied science?", and then to follow it with "It sounds to me as if you don't even know the meaning of the question" is most definitely insulting. As to "obviously" not having the knowledge of the science I am criticizing, I have three questions; Is that not another insult? At what point in our previous discourse did I criticize the science? What was obvious about my lack of knowledge? To answer your question "Have you in fact ever studied science?, I took the required amount of science to graduate high school, I have spent the rest of my life reading about, learning, and being fascinated by science. I would remind you that I started this debate by criticizing the foul mouthed zealotry so frequently shown by the followers of Global Warming, the worlds fastest growing religion.
(George): So you're a concern troll.
(Nancy): Well George, I should have stopped the first time you insulted me as I'd already made my point. On the other hand, the fact that you evaded my questions and once again resorted to an insult reinforces the opinion I started this debate with. Thank you for you input, it's been interesting.
(George): This is surreal. You really have absolutely no intention of discussing the topic.
(George): (Argument Clinic) http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment