2 years ago
0 0

Good Night Love Quotes on Without saying Goodnight

Recommended Quotes

Comments to Good Night Love Quotes on Without saying Goodnight

  • the warmest year was 1998 and that later fdiinngs that recent years were the hottest are based on tiny differences much lower than margins of error, I would have preferred you to tell us why he might be wrong rather than see the posturing that occurred. Why?: its about the science. In one sense we should all be sceptics, and all good scientists are. And we should all hope that climate change fears are unfounded, and have been praying that Minchin’s side had the better arguments. However, I believe, with a degree of but not absolute confidence, that those fears are justified, not because I have thoroughly studied or understand the science, but a) because of the apparent overwhelming weight of numbers of serious scientists pointing to the dangers, and b) because the simple explanation of the mechanism makes intuitive sense i.e. huge rise in emissions plus the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, my brain is ageing and not so good at retaining the relevant bits of evidence. But I would have expected someone acting as an opinion leader in this field to be on top of that detail. By not doing so you came across as a true believer, uninterested in facts. The barely suppressed look of satisfaction on your face as your experts explained how serious climate change is and how its going to do bad things was, albeit understandable, indicative of exactly the thing that Minchin and many other sceptics suspect is at the heart of the climate change movement a leftwing or green desire to deindustrialise (though why he thinks the left is intrinsically anti-industrial I’m not sure the Soviet Union was a great example of worshiping industrial development and despoiling the environment worse than any advanced capitalist country.I’m probably being overly critical your heart is in the right place, and you are obviously very smart. As a lawyer you can no doubt master a brief, so I was a bit surprised to see the approach you took. Perhaps it was partly a result of editing? I’m just a bit fed up with the dialogue of the deaf on climate change which might as well be between fanatical religious groups or football fans. But we do need to get the facts right: the media experts should put up against experts,not interview them individually, nor should it be a debate between partisans. The truth (or perhaps more accurately, the probable degree of risk?) is the core question. If that risk is low, then we should be happy, and there is no need for action other than in terms of conservation of resources.. Remember coal isn’t intrinsically bad (or good), despite local pollution effects: I’d be happy to phase it out if its a cause of climate change but we do need to remember, without coal there would have been no industrial revolution, and the technological basis to support a global population several times bigger than 200 years ago, with vastly better outcomes in terms of life expectancy, literacy, health, food security, life opportunities. (a whole other debate, but happy to have it).kind regardsJon Richardson

    Summer February 13, 2016 11:32 pm Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Menu Title