General Discussion
You should have originally said scientific community. You wouldn't call an area of scientific study 'anthropogenic climate change' because you would be implying the cause of the phenomenon you were trying to study. I realise people do that, which is another reason to be highly skeptical of work with that phrase in it. Who doesn't understand science these days? It's basically taught from school.
Yes, but that isn't the same as a bloke called Steve on dawlish.com who knows nothing about the scientific community, scientific methodology, the subject of climate science and rigour in research" No one seems to know anything about the "global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change" .
You are right @1263 . I don't really know what he's laughing about since what he's put in bold is completely different to what he put in subsequent posts. If you search "global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change" it returns practically nothing, just 1 pdf in google. Nothing in other search engines. So it's hardly some scientific authority, even though there are no such ...
I summed it up correctly. It's your belief that there is a climate crisis. The word crisis is subjective and political, not scientific. You wrote "... a bloke called Steve on dawlish.com who knows nothing about the scientific community, scientific methodology, the subject of climate science and rigour in research". I never wrote that about myself.
I understand fine. You believe there's a climate crisis and I don't. I'm not sensitive, just pointing out things you said about me that were wrong. Probably best to agree to disagree.
I assumed the 'you' in 'you don't understand .... ' referred to me personally. If you check what you wrote compared to what I wrote then you will see you weren't quoting me. Happy to carry on the conversation if you want to. So your job depends on there being a climate crisis then?
Saying something like "You don't understand so ans so ..." is a personal statement. I never said I was arbiter of truth, I just said you weren't. I've not asked you for your background because it's irrelevant. And I never said I don't know anything about the scientific methodology, the subject of climate science and rigour in research. I thought you wanted to end the conversation. Make up ...
I understand natural phenomena perfectly well thanks. You aren't arbiter of truth. I've explained why I think the climate crisis is flawed. I don't need to give you my life story as well as it's irrelevant. Cheers anyway.
I have a sense of humour, I just don't see why it has to be a hoax. Understanding of natural phenomena changes all the time. People may be poorer because of austerity, but it doesn't mean they can't get even poorer. Government schemes tend to have that side-effect. It does say discuss and debate on the home page. Happy to end the chat here too. Hopefully I've provided a less gloomy ...
Moon landings? You seem to be grasping at straws. I've only stated obvious facts. Nothing I’ve said is a belief. Anyone genuinely concerned about the climate would be relieved that the climate catastrophes predicted every decade since the 70s were all wrong. It's only bad news for those hoping to use the climate hysteria to further their ideological causes. People are going to be even poorer ...
