Tuesday, January 12, 2010

You don't need a weatherman

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.

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.
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.

3 comments:

Giovanni said...

Occam's Shaving Foam... priceless. Also, thank you for reading the rest of that article so I wouldn't have to. I gave up a sixth of the way through.

Tim said...

I was not aware that religion was based on facts. Have I been misled? (para.13 )

He's obviously trying to be popular by attempting to find some mythical "middle ground"

As for the media don't have any views in this, he should try looking for an anti-intelligence slant - especially in rehashed American articles (oh, and the originals too)

Good to see your computer's working again.

Stephen Stratford said...

Hi Paul

What's your email? I have been asked for your contact details for a possible writing job. You could email me at stephen dot stratford at xtra dot co dot nz.