Deniers, Sceptics and Unbelievers (Home Page)
Denier, Sceptic and Unbeliever
– These are just some of the names I have been called.
Check out these pages for examples. ===========>
I have also been called unscientific.
Well I have decided to start this blog to record some of the conversations I am having with AGW hypothesis supporters.
The conversations usually end up with the AGW supporter simply spamming my answer because it is too hard to answer.
I guess they feel that my comment threatens their “faith”.
I also think that publishing the unanswered comments here will help illustrate how paranoid and dishonest many of these sites are.
I make no apology for making provocative enquiries at these websites. But I do believe they are not beyond the level where one would reasonably expect a courteous response.
I will let you, the readers, decide whether my approach is scientific or not.
As for the other names “Denier, Sceptic and Unbeliever” I frankly cannot believe we are in the 21st century and part of a (hopefully) generally educated and self determining society.
Those labels one might reasonably expect from an Islamic extremist, or to go back in history, possibly from the inquisitions of the medieval period – but is this the 21st century?
All these things point to the fact that we seem to have a new religion rising among us.
Now I am a tolerant sort of guy. I was brought up in an extremely rigid and religious family so there is not much I don’t know of how a religion works. However as I grew up I saw through all the duplicity and guilt that I was being loaded with and I suppose I would be labeled nowadays as an “unbeliever” in that sense.
However, as you might imagine, when some proselytising person comes to my door to peddle their particular religion, I am well equipped to deal with them at an intellectual level. In fact as a youth I was tutored in all the questions that would make these people doubt their own faith.
But when one of these people comes to my door, I find my attitude is quite different. I find that I don’t want to argue with them. I take the attitude that if they are happy in their belief, then they should go for it. So I quickly thank them for their “concern” (which should make them feel at least a little guilty because they are really competing to see how many “souls” they can capture) and politely but firmly send them on their way.
Now I used to have the same attitude towards believers in the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis – if it makes you feel good – go for it, well after all in the 70’s we had the same scare about the approaching ice age
we had scares about running out of oil – Two “Oil Shocks” as I recall – not to mention Malthusian scares about the population getting too large for the earth by the year 2000.
Of course these things have an element of possibility or inevitability about them, but those particular prophets of doom have been and are definitely ahead of their time.
What is different to me is this new “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, religion is basically going to hit me in my pocket. As an economist I am quite aware of what the consequences of the IPCC emission reduction demands will be.
Frankly my opinion at the moment is that the IPCC emission reduction demands, coupled with the proposed transfers of wealth, will cause enough economic collapse in the western world that we will see our children and ourselves face starvation. (I am researching this aspect for my next blog, which I hope to publish soon, and so far the evidence I have gathered doesn’t look too good).
So the fact that this “other peoples religion” is not going to be kept to themselves, but is going to adversely influence me personally as well as the community where I live, for no good cause, is why I have come vocal in pointing out the inconsistencies and duplicities of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis religion.
Of course our planet needs to be conserved, its resources used wisely and our garbage and poisonous emissions cleaned up etc. However the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is leading us on quite the opposite path by threatening to deprive us of the very resources we need to nurture the planet, by instead, wasting our resources pursuing the life-giving gas – Carbon Dioxide.
I firmly maintain that one does not need to be a scientist in order to evaluate the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. Although there is a lot of smoke and mist obscuring the real truth, a lay person can come to a sensible decision simply by using his mind. See my other blog http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Sadly though, like the sheep in Orwells’s book “Animal Farm” many people are throwing their faith in the juggernaut of the UN and the IPCC and not thinking any further.
P.S. Do you like my header? I’m open for suggestions for a caption. Yes I have thought of “St Peter at the Pearly Gate”.