The change is natural

IT is noticeable that Eric Alexander (Letters, July 27) classes all those who argue against his climate change dogma as being ‘climate deniers’, (whatever that means).

The reality is that he has no valid argument against climate change as a totally natural phenomenon caused by the numerous natural cycles of the Earth.

Perhaps he believes these do not happen. Perhaps he believes the ‘political science’ of the Earth rotating once in 24 hours. orbiting the Sun in one year and the angle of inclination permanently at 23.5°.

Perhaps he believes none of these phenomena have anything to do with climate.

Perhaps he even believes the Sun orbits the Earth and the moon orbits the Earth from East to West.

After all, he does believe that engineering is a religion.

He also believes that any climatic variation he has not personally noticed happening previously in his lifetime is ‘unprecedented’ and therefore caused by mankind lighting fires (what he refers to as ‘burning fossil fuels).

Hence he persists in an argument the direct equivalent to “thunderstorms are the result of God’s displeasure at the people not behaving as we tell them to”.

He does have a point. that confidence trick worked for well over 1700 AD years and many similar myths in other disciplines of civilisation still work well in the 21st Century.

P D Somerville, Coningsby Road, High Wycombe

Comments (2)

10:20pm Tue 14 Aug 12

wayneo says...

The reason they use "climate-change denier" is to draw a similiar parallel to that of the holocaust denier. Use of the word denier in order to make such a view 'socially unacceptable, is as deliberate as the tax increases that follow the climate-change agenda.
The reason they use "climate-change denier" is to draw a similiar parallel to that of the holocaust denier. Use of the word denier in order to make such a view 'socially unacceptable, is as deliberate as the tax increases that follow the climate-change agenda. wayneo

12:06pm Wed 15 Aug 12

Bill Williams says...

wayneo wrote:
The reason they use "climate-change denier" is to draw a similiar parallel to that of the holocaust denier. Use of the word denier in order to make such a view 'socially unacceptable, is as deliberate as the tax increases that follow the climate-change agenda.
Yes "climate denier" is a great one. I've never met anyone who has argued that there's no climate.

Still, it saves having to actually debate or understand anything you're saying. One simply turns up, shouts louder and maligns everyone as Holocaust Deniers or in the pay of "Big Oil". Job done.
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: The reason they use "climate-change denier" is to draw a similiar parallel to that of the holocaust denier. Use of the word denier in order to make such a view 'socially unacceptable, is as deliberate as the tax increases that follow the climate-change agenda.[/p][/quote]Yes "climate denier" is a great one. I've never met anyone who has argued that there's no climate. Still, it saves having to actually debate or understand anything you're saying. One simply turns up, shouts louder and maligns everyone as Holocaust Deniers or in the pay of "Big Oil". Job done. Bill Williams

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree