Comment 26514

By historywillspitonus (anonymous) | Posted September 11, 2008 at 07:05:23

Smith, Smith, Smith. Your epistemology is both confused and confusing; you attempt to use rational argument to attack rational enquiry and the scientific consensus. You can't use reason to fight reason - but pseudo-reason works just fine for this. I think you'll find that's what you've been using. You're also horribly misled, both about recent scientific observations of arctic sea ice, and about how long term climate models interact with our year-on-year experience of the weather and so on.

Your final comment about pragmatism and doing what's best for your personal lifestyle is really all you needed to say - all that muddle-headed tosh about computer models etc was quite unnecessary. You have a position - self interest - which dictates your view on wider issues you don't understand. We get it - enough half-arsed rationalisation now.

No, let's not call it a draw; we have 99% of the world's peer-reviewed climate science on our side, whereas you have some crackpot notions you read on the internet somewhere. Instead, let's agree to disagree. You can continue on down your path of self-imposed ignorance and self-interest, while the rest of us try to work out solutions to the grave problems facing all of us over the coming decades. Those solutions will have to include simpletons like yourself, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds