Climate change
A CHRONICLE reader recently bemoaned the quantity of climate change correspondence, but some of us are also well and truly over with how – in general – academia, the education system, the mainstream media, the arts, commentators, “experts”, social media, politicians, world leaders, eminent persons, “trusted” institutions and organisations, religiosity and business are singing off the same song sheet, with some notables relentlessly regurgitating catastrophic scenarios.
Yes, a never-ending parade of parrots of doom from hysterical Hollywood hypocrites and people such as Angela Merkel, UN chief Antonio Guterres, the Pope, Julie Bishop, Prince Charles, to the latest poster child Greta Thunberg.
At Davos 2020, Al Gore declared to delegates, “This is Dunkirk. This is 9/11” and much more hyperbole.
Andrew Civil (TC, 27/1), your points regarding the need for “a voice of calmness and reason” are very pertinent and valid – if only more of us made the personal effort to apprehend this.
The very fact that in any discussion of global warming/climate change most people now instinctually associate both “anthropogenic” and “apocalyptic” with these terms proves just how indoctrinated the world at large has become.
The masses seem oblivious to the fact that it is indicative of totalitarian regimes rather than traditional democracies when only one narrative is tolerated, inescapably reinforced to saturation point, fearmongering is continually ramped up, and credible voices of dissent are actively ignored, reflexively dismissed and vilified.
Highly experienced and qualified US climatologist Judith Curry is a prime example.
Her posts are an enlightening read for those able to operate outside groupthink safe spaces.
One SBS news bulletin the other night had four segments on climate change. No guesses needed from which viewpoint.
Now to Gerard Hore (TC 21/1), your response to my letter (TC 15/1) addressed none of the points I raised in it, including “unprecedented” and how short a period of time records have been kept (200 years) versus the claimed age of the Australian continent (three billion years). Nor did you challenge the statement about the untrustworthiness of much scientific peer-reviewed literature and many experts, insincerity, the fallacy of consensus equals truth, brainwashing, lack of diverservice sity of thought, deplatforming, cultish behaviour, or sacred cows.
You referenced NASA, an organisation with impressive CGI but a history of rubbery “certainties”, and made a feel-good comparison of myself with flat earthers, stating I “need to accept the facts”.
Gerard, am I to accept yesterday’s, today’s or tomorrow’s facts from science?
In less than the past 100 years of evolutionary theory, something as fundamental as the age of the universe has gone from two billion years to currently 13.8 billion. But of what concern is 12 billion years here or there. M.J. ELIAS, Toowoomba