Peter Ryan, Castlemaine
It puzzles me why David Cunningham (‘Bugger-all difference’, Opinions, November 27) continues to get such coverage in your paper.
I believe that we have been at the stage for quite some time now, where the argument about human-induced climate change is settled. Thus, there is no need for further debate.
Once again the recent US National Climate change assessment, the work of 300 scientists and 13 federal agencies pointed unequivocally to the clear and present danger that climate change presents to our planet and to our way of life. Maybe Mr Cunningham knows better than these 300 scientists and 13 US federal agencies!
It may give him some comfort to know that Mr Trump has also rejected the findings of this eminent group (enough said).
I wonder if there is ANY evidence, no matter how theoretical at this stage, that might get our deniers to reconsider their position. And, if so, what that new evidence might be.
I suggest that there is probably not ANY such potential evidence as these folk are acting, not on logic or reason, but from an emotional, faith-based platform and thus nothing will get them to change. (By ‘faith-based’ here, I don’t mean religious, but rather a belief based on something other than logic and reason.) You can’t argue with such a position, so there is not much point trying, really. Why bother?