This site uses cookies

General Discussion

Posts on General Discussion

New New Labour
1263
1263
25 Jul 2024

My post 17.01 response 17.08 nuff said.

@1263 How's that grudge coming along? Which words are bamboozling you?

1263
1263
25 Jul 2024

@steve Your wasting your time arguing wth this bloke who has a massive chip on his shoulder about being english not british. Possibly in his past relatives came to the UK seeking a better life and he has grown up hating that, hence his historical rambles about churchill and the bengal famine, possibly a reference to his roots.? He condesends to people he thinks are beneath his "intellect" ...

Haha Who do you think you are Columbo? And yeah I wrote that as it's based on what you'd written about yourself, which I copied and pasted above. Do you understand? Your argument is based on humanity being fallible, not science itslelf which has in-built check and balances. Yet you wouldn't know about that would you? I doubt you've ever read a scientific paper in your life. That and a ...

Steve
Steve
25 Jul 2024

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.

@Steve yes I think it's best to agree to disagree. My stance isn't based on belief, scientific research functions because it doesn't trust itself and is continually re-examining itself, so if anthropogenic climate change were in fact proven to be wrong the proof would come from the scientific community itself not from a 'non-believer' in another field or some bloke on an obscure local website in ...

Steve
Steve
25 Jul 2024

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.

@Steve you clearly don't understand, that's factual and you admitted you know no little about the topic. I wrote 'I don't think you understand' and I'm not attacking you personally, so why so sensitive? No my job does not depend on the climate crisis. I knew you'd take that angle, so predictable. There's no point continuing this conversation, you clearly only want to discuss things on your ...

Steve
Steve
25 Jul 2024

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?

@Steve , it's not personal, it's based on your words in th thread where it is evident for all to read that you stated that you don't know anything about anthropogenic climate change sceince. I'm saying you're not the arbiter of truth either, which is in response to your comment. I never said I was either, but I can defend scientific process and you won't even go there. In terms of my ...