General Discussion
@Steve Excuse me, 'should' and 'shouldn't' sounds like dictating. You googled the terms 'global scientific community' thinking it was some over-arching evil organization based on your own deep mistrust and paranoia. 'Humans don't cause weather', is that your final word? Thank flip for that.
@Steve I shouldn't have written anything any differently. You don't dictate anything to me, just because you're either confused or paranoid. You're just trying to save face because you look foolish. Climate change wasn't given the anthropogenic prefix from the beginning of research into it anyway - that'd be predetermined and poor science, nor was the term 'anthropocene' it came later and was ...
@Steve The global scientific community isn't one body or authority. It's numerous institutions, research centres, universities, etc. They don't have one website. That's the whole point, they're not associated and can challenge the research of another with impartiality in theory. I'm simply referring to scientists and in particular climate scientists around the globe whose research connects them ...
@Steve This is what you wrote on 22nd July 21:08, Scroll up. "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 ...
@1263 Thanks, always lovely chatting with you.
@1263 How's that grudge coming along? Which words are bamboozling you?
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 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 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 , 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 ...