John P. Holdren writes a piece for the Boston Globe today. He nearly single handedly proves Dr. Freeman Dysons contention about the global warming alarmist majority, that "The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism..."
See my open letter to Dr. John P. Holdren. In brief he states that the skeptics:
1) "...receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments."
So, the skeptics shouldn't be listened to. There's no there there.
2)"The skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it... Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter...Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. "
So, the skeptics are playing a shell game.
3) "First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed..."
Well, yes they have. That you can't even summarize your opponents arguments suggests you are entrenched in your own orthodoxy.
4) "Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
Well, yes they have. That you can't even summarize your opponents arguments suggests you are entrenched in your own orthodoxy.
Posts
Nikolay Dubovskoy paintings
9 hours ago
