- Balance.. Archived Message
Posted by Gerard
on February 26, 2020, 9:34 am, in reply to "Does anyone know if this thesis of Patrick Moore's has been effectively rebutted? -"
|
It plays to (extremist), anti-federalist conspiracy theory paranoia that climate change science has been partially accepted by governmental institutions and co-opted by biotech interests...still the address is interesting..our drive to radically restructure our transport infrastructure by moving straight to electric-cars (eschewing alternative fuel-mix hybrids), is one example I am sceptical about but the true core of good climate change science is not in the greening or otherwise but on the effect of fresh water dilution of salt based ocean currents such as the Gulf-Stream...these are major players in the earth's climate the consequences of them (esp. the Gulf-Stream), being switched off are enormous as is also the prospect of even greater methane release....both are trigger/tipping points that one reached may be unrecoverable from...as a campaigner for ecology/environment for many decades I well remember the difficulties myself and fellow campaigners had getting any of the science accepted but this is not to say that we always get the science correct, what we were campaigning for was to be taken seriously. Dr. Moore seems to be ignoring the stats on global warming and the undoubted increase in extreme weather events across the world and pejoratively "picks and chooses" his ground...he is clearly in favour of nuclear power which was bad-science from the outset and will always remain so..."Beware the signs and wonders"...when confronted by uncomfortable truths man always tries to hide behind the old shibboleths..we must practice and exercise balance, falling for libertarian appeals concerning personal freedoms is as bad as allowing big government to co-opt the process of change.. |