General Discussion
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
@Steve , You've taken it personally, that's a shame. You're not the arbiter of truth either and you've not explained why anthropogenic climate change science is flawed, in any case you admit you know nothing about it. I didn't ask for your life story, I simply asked you to provide some details concerning your background so anyone reading this could decide whether your scepticism had any ...
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.