General Discussion
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 ...
Well it's not a belief, it's a scientific fact that the climate was changing long before humans ever existed on the planet. What is a belief is that humans are now responsible for weather events and the government is able to fix this if we all pay more taxes. I never said all academics were on the left. I mentioned celebrities since they often tend to display that same arrogance as leftist ...
I don't believe I'm in the minority. I don’t know anything about the global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change except that scientific communities are made up of fallible people with political biases. Most people in academia are on the left of politics because, like celebrities, they don't understand economics. Some scientists even lie believe it or not. ...
You said, "There's a consensus on anthropogenic climate change being fact" . No, I don't trust consensus. You mentioned “global conspiracy” even though I only correctly said that the climate, etc. has been changing since the dawn of time. I never said anything about a hoax . You’ve mentioned it several times now. I don’t think anyone else has. I’m interested in why you think it may be ...
Facts are not determined by consensus. Ideology and politics are. Saying the climate has been changing since the dawn of time is not a conspiracy. You can’t deal with corruption in politics because it is human nature. You can only mitigate its impact. The bigger the government the more the corruption. The individual is actually best suited to decide how their income should be spent.
Because those are the ones with the rooftop space. Subsidies always end up benefiting wealthiest. Take the yearly £30bn housing benefit bill as an example. That's basically a landlord subsidy costing each taxpayer around £800 every year. The climate, weather, polar ice caps, forests and deserts have been changing since the dawn of time, long before man even existed. Trying to blame it now on ...
