Discussion
@1263 Thanks, always lovely chatting with you.
My post 17.01 response 17.08 nuff said.
@1263 How's that grudge coming along? Which words are bamboozling you?
@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 ...
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?