Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Reply to Walsunda

Reply to Walsunda


The worlds oldest and longest continually operating scientific institution has been located for 40,000 years in a large limestone cave.

Really what institution would that be? more importantly how may the wisdom of said institution be accessed?

As for flying don’t forget it’s your total per capita emissions that count not how you rack them up.

No Wal its the global total that counts not your personal emissions

I’ve never had a frequent flier point in my life.

Well I can be sure that you have more air miles racked up than I do

Do you fly home to England to see family or do you regard that as hypocrisy.

I have never returned to the land of my birth and as I abhor the idea of air travel I am unlikely to ever do so.

You’re the one who erroneously talks about jet travel as a major source of net carbon emissions not me.

According to this site the global aviation produces about as much emissions as our national total (2% of the global total) so if you can be concerned about our national emmisons then surely you can not ignore a part of the equation that is at least equal in significance to Australia’s total emissions?

With respect to my exemption from your devout concepts you say “No as one of the climate anointed, a scientist no less, there is a very great moral obligation to not only talk the talk but also to walk the walk”.

While I may often feel anointed by the Brisbane climate, as a scientist I am exempt from your beliefs as belief plays no part in my analysis and enjoyment of life.

No, your claim to be “above mere belief (paraphrase)” is in fact a type of belief and an article of your own personal faith in “science”

We all share a great moral obligation to reduce our net carbon emissions (walk the walk in your well used metaphor) as I have already done without trying too hard; and to understand the science that explains global warming (talk the talk) as you so demonstrably have failed to do.

The thing that your limited “science” education lets you down because you simply can not legitimately divide the metaphor as you attempt to do here. The metaphor is all about being consistent in your words and deeds, and as a heretic I am under no obligation at all to know or understand your own revered texts or your own special liturgical mantras

That someone such has you, whose belief system and habits prevent them from understanding the science of climatology, global warming and climate change, can achieve low net carbon emissions demonstrates how easily such a goal can be achieved.

You see I have a “low carbon footprint” because I respect the value of energy efficiency because efficiency gives me the pay off of a happy hip pocket nerve, any effect that I may have on the global climate change equation is entirely incidental, more importantly it has nothing to do with your faith.

Rational analysis of both objective and subjective reality have combined to produce a good existential outcome.

Hmm that sentence is so full of contradictions I think that you need to study a bit more philosophy but as a prerequisite for that study I suggest you first consider the meanings of the words above that I have emboldened.

1 Comment

  1. […] Walsunda Firstly I responded to your last missive at my blog […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: