General Discussion
@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.
@Steve , I don't disagree with much of what you've written, people are poorer because of austerity, there's no 'may be' about it. I don't think you do understand natural phenomena antmore than you understand climate science or scientic enquiry in general. It is a discussion and debate page, but seeing as you don't answer or side-step many of my questions it';s just going around in circles. I ...
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 ...