Am I sceptical of global warming? A little. Not because I think it's a "conspiracy" but purely because the debate has gone from discussing everyday solutions to only the extreme sides of the argument.Is Philip Duncan a moron? A little. You see, Philip Duncan is a Weather Analyst, but he is not a meteorologist. He is extraordinarily lucky, to be able to run a business doing something for which he has no qualifications; it is tribute to New Zealand's can-do, she'll-be-right amateurism, and our distrust of experts, that both the Herald and something called The Radio Network pay Mr Duncan for his forecasts. But that does not make him a climatologist, or particularly bright. Further evidence of absence of scientific knowledge and luminosity can be found in Duncan's use of the argument from Y2K (protip: the geeks fixed the computers, so the planes did not fall out of the skies) and his claim to be plotting a middle course between two extremes - the keep it simple, common sense approach (known as Occam's Shaving Foam) which has yet so solve a scientific controversy. That many of his readers know more about the climate than he, and that he is obviously rather piqued by the imbalance of knowledge, are both obvious. His solution is set up a poll, which has proven scientifically that most of his readers are as unconcerned about climate change as he. It just goes to show, doesn't it? The man is a fool, as are most of his readers.
It's like Y2K...which went from saying "some computers will crash" to "planes will fall from the sky at midnight". Work had to be done to resolve Y2K issues and I believe work needs to be done to resolve some of the issues that we, or poorer nations, may face later this century.
However we're now debating countries being wiped out, figures being fudged, nations arguing over what is too little and what is too much. The sensible middle ground seems to be forgotten - it's either "the world is doomed" or "global warming is a conspiracy". Both of those extreme arguments I simply can not subscribe to.