According to popular ‘consensus’ the world is heading for its greatest tragedy in the history of mankind.
The scenario is that millions are going to die and thousands of species are going to be eradicated. Billions of square miles of the planet are to become uninhabitable and life will be so radically changed for all of us as to be unrecognisable. Already billions are being spent to try to reverse this.
This is surely an apocalyptic scenario?
And here is where I want an answer to a very simple question.
If I were diagnosed with a virulent cancer and the prognosis were grim and the only way to survive is to have both arms and both legs amputated what would I do? Would I immediately book myself in for surgery or would I ask for a second opinion? Would I be sensible if I were to go for those amputations if I heard that many eminent surgeons were saying that I don’t have cancer at all and that it is just normal aging affecting me?
If I were the leader of the world and I were presented with the evidence for climate change what would be my most sensible recourse? Would I immediately call together all the heads of state and demand that they mend their ways to avoid the impending tragedy? Or would I plough all my resources into research to discover the precise extent of the problem?
There is increasing evidence that not only is Global Warming a completely natural event but that in fact that the figures are all wrong and that the world has been cooling for the last ten years. There is an increasing number of eminent scientists that claims the calculations are not only in error but that they have been deliberately falsified.
If I were World Leader I would be delighted with this news. Here is a ray of hope. I would immediately call a world conference of scientists, both AGW believers and AGW skeptics and would have them debate the issue.
Why on earth would I be insane enough to not only deny the skeptics’ claims but to even refuse to listen to them?
If I received a letter from a large group of scientists and professors refuting the AGW stance I would halt all discussions and have the letter thoroughly investigated.
So here is my very simple question.
Why are the skeptics being ignored? How can there be global consensus where there is obviously a large body of dissent?
WHY IS THERE NO DEBATE?
Whether you are a believer or not, that surely must be puzzling?