The first thing to notice is that I, unlike the CCF's, am not trying to stop you reading opposing points of view. In fact I encourage it, which is the way we get a debate started. You will not hear me say that I am right because so many thousands (and growing every day) agree with me, I will not stifle comment by declaring, "The debate is over", and I will never try to browbeat you by saying "The science is settled". I actively encourage people to take part in this debate, because believe me when the tax demands start dropping through your letter box you will wish you at least made a stand.
Let us look at Albert's comment. He says:
"Are you a scientist then Bob? Or are you one of these people who think Elvis is still alive?"
Now notice he doesn't try and debate with me, instead he tries to mock me, tries to belittle me and make me ashamed that I dared to question the Holy Writ of the CCF's. However his is an important comment because it shows just what sort of people we are up against. Let us look at his question "Are you a scientist?" The answer is no I'm not, but do I have to be? I have no knowledge of physics, or the intricacies of velocity – mass equations, but I do know that if I step in front of a train going at speed I am liable to come off second best!
Albert is just the sort of person the CCF's are looking for, someone who will unquestionably accept what his superiors tell him to accept. Five hundred years ago it was the church that played this role; today it is an unholy alliance of politics and science. Their aims are remarkably similar, power and domination over the serfs. People like Albert are the sort of people who used to torture people to death because their superiors told them to. Don't forget the majority of the guards in the camps were not made up of the elite they were taken from the inmates. But does Albert have a point; are scientist's people who should be believed without question?
Let's overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists (number is growing daily) don't agree with the CCF's, and just look at scientists. Just how good is their track record?
Before Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 there was a consensus (there's that word again) amongst the other scientists that the Sun transited around the earth. So just how valuable were their opinions? And of course we cannot overlook the views of Harvard educated Doctor Howard Aiken who forecast in the late fifties that there would only be the need for "one or two computers would suffice", Well I've got two on my desk, so does that mean I've got the entire worlds stock of computers in my office? No it simply means this scientist was wrong on this occasion. And of course let us not forget that wonderful example of scientists being spectacular wrong when it came to "The greatest threat to mankind" the Millennium Bug. Governments spent some $300 billion of taxpayers' money preparing for this crisis, special committees were set up and a lot of people made an awful lot of money out of this panic, which was supported by a consensus of scientific opinion. Sound familiar? Of course as soon as the second hand swept past midnight that particular gravy train came to an abrupt halt, never mind there's another one coming along straight away, this is the Global Warming/Freezing/Changing scam and just look how we are clamouring to jump aboard.
After the Y2K fiasco a national paper tracked down a well respected computer scientist who predicted correctly that there was not a problem. Asked why he didn't come forward before he showed documentary evidence that he had tried to tell the world there was nothing to worry about, but his papers were not published and he was sidelined, this sounds very familiar.
Of course we must not forget all those scientists who warned the world that it was heading for a new Ice Age, oops sorry, we mean the planet is catching fire, oh no it's not its uhhh, well changing. Haven't you noticed how the nomenclature has changed over the years as scientists come up with new scare stories? Global Freezing, Global Warming oh bug*er let's just say Climate change that should take care of everything.
Besides Albert you overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in anthropogenic (man made) global warming, AGW, so why can't we listen to them? Or do you insist that the only people we listen to are those who insist the sun goes round the earth, that only a handful of computers will be needed and that the Millennium Bug is the greatest threat to mankind? If so, congratulations you have shown yourself worthy of the title Climate Change Fanatic 1st Class.
I end by repeating what I said earlier, No I am not a scientist – but do I have to be? (Still not quite sure what Elvis has to do with it though)
No comments:
Post a Comment