Wow! Thanks for the edjumacation — or would that be conflation?
Let’s suss this out.
1. Yes, obviously. Proven about 2,000 years ago.
2. Yes, obviously. Several diseases have been controlled or eliminated by their use.
3. Yes, obviously. Even if the technology had been available to simulate such an event, with the huge number of people involved, such a conspiracy could not be maintained for long.
4. Yes, obviously, for essentially the same reason as in #3 above. And contrails, which linger for varying periods of time, are caused by the deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
5. Yes, of course. By its very nature, climate changes. But the claims that a global rise in temperature of about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 60 years is unprecedented; that it is primarily caused by human activity; that such activity has led to, or will lead to catastrophic changes or extremes in climate; that such changes are, or will be accelerating; and that immediate, drastic, and costly action must be taken to alleviate it, are disputed by many scientists and others who objectively look at the data.
Implying that those who don’t buy into a particular popular assumption (that is unanimously promoted by those whose incomes are dependent on it being an issue) are ignorant “science deniers” or shills for the fossil fuel industry smacks of agendaism, intellectual snobbery, and the very narrow-mindedness of which those typically pushing alarmist rhetoric accuse those who question it.
No comments:
Post a Comment