Letters to the editor, The Daily Advertiser, December 7

The way I see it, there is an infection and then there is a fever response which includes physical and mental debility symptoms.

The purpose of the fever response is to prevent transmission.

Because the body's defence system is set for the preservation of the species.

The individual is expendable.

The defence system may be provoked, by interventions and too-early activity for instance, to repeat reasserting its purpose.

In this case, conditioned-reflex outcomes may occur.

Such as a debility response to activity, after the infection has passed.

READ MORE LETTERS:

Climate worriers regularly cite a specific item and present it as a conclusion within a context of their own devising.

Thus, Michelle Scott ("Climate denial plain wrong", The Daily Advertiser, November 29) cites myriad data collected by the CSIRO and NASA and implies that these are conclusions rather than measurements (of temperatures, atmospheric composition or what have you).

Data is valuable, but the writer seems to conflate "research and evidence (data)" as if they are one thing. Evidence can be used in research but is not, per se, research - let alone conclusive of anything: think of "evidence" in a legal trial.

In my earlier letter to which Ms Scott responded, I stated that there is no scientifically sound way to establish (or "research" if you will) that human-induced climate change exists.

There is no way, for example, to establish a "control" comparison - an earth devoid of human activity by which to measure the difference made by nasty mines, coal-driven power and so on, on the climate.

Even then discriminators would have to be built-in to the research to eliminate differences due to respiratory exhalations of CO2 (varying populations), sun-burst activity, and vegetative cover (more plants and trees would absorb more CO2 and exude more oxygen). That's why I say that any research of a truly scientific nature is "physically impossible" - unless we find a parallel earth devoid of concrete cities, cars, aircon, heaters and bovine flatus.

Ms Scott, in her letter, had a wonderful opportunity to describe a specific study or research that would shoot my scepticism down in flames. That she did not is because she could not. Instead, she generalises about my "ignorance" (it's "astounding" apparently), that I make "ridiculous" claims, and that I'm a "stubbornly" sort of cove. Ad hominem attack (which is usually just "petulance" with a Latin name) is something else frequently hauled out of the arsenal by climate catastrophists who, let's face it, chronically have little else to shoot with.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.