Lets Revisit Some of the Debates For the Global Warming Theory
We have all heard about Global Warming, where the planet's atmosphere is supposedly heating up.
Of course, we as common citizens have no real proof, only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think Tanks and mass media.
But how can we trust this when Global Warming researchers have been paid 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they disagree with global warming theory the money stops being funded and they are out of work? One of the most fascinating debate points for Global Warming goes something like this; "The majority of scientists say global warming is real and we are already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western USA and the long term drought in Australia.
" This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell you why.
You see it is irrelevant and may not even be true.
After all, 55% would be most of the scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and research to back up the opposite point of view.
Likewise, during Copernicus' day only one man believed the world was round, everyone else said it was flat; so the "majority of scientists" argument is irrelevant; majorities don't mean anything.
If you were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? That is illogical.
Now then, the second part of the argument has to do with droughts in the world.
And we all know that droughts come and go.
Remember the Dust Bowl "Grapes of Wrath" in the US? And in the 1950s Australia had a drought just as bad during the same period, same as the one they are having now.
This one we notice more because there are more people demanding the same amount of water.
In California, the snowpack this year is normal and anymore puts us above normal, thus, the drought theoretically is over? So, does that mean this so-called Global Warming is over? Of course, not the powers that be, behind global warming will continue to pursue this until it's no longer in their interests.
Think on this.
Of course, we as common citizens have no real proof, only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think Tanks and mass media.
But how can we trust this when Global Warming researchers have been paid 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they disagree with global warming theory the money stops being funded and they are out of work? One of the most fascinating debate points for Global Warming goes something like this; "The majority of scientists say global warming is real and we are already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western USA and the long term drought in Australia.
" This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell you why.
You see it is irrelevant and may not even be true.
After all, 55% would be most of the scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and research to back up the opposite point of view.
Likewise, during Copernicus' day only one man believed the world was round, everyone else said it was flat; so the "majority of scientists" argument is irrelevant; majorities don't mean anything.
If you were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? That is illogical.
Now then, the second part of the argument has to do with droughts in the world.
And we all know that droughts come and go.
Remember the Dust Bowl "Grapes of Wrath" in the US? And in the 1950s Australia had a drought just as bad during the same period, same as the one they are having now.
This one we notice more because there are more people demanding the same amount of water.
In California, the snowpack this year is normal and anymore puts us above normal, thus, the drought theoretically is over? So, does that mean this so-called Global Warming is over? Of course, not the powers that be, behind global warming will continue to pursue this until it's no longer in their interests.
Think on this.
Source...