General Discussion

So as Leeds and London burn after mass riots, parliament is concerned with the imaginary climate crisis.

The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

Why is the climate crisis 'Imaginary'?

Please put your proof here.

As I posted before, the alarmists have been claiming we have 10 years to act before it's too late since the 70s, and the climate and sea levels are still the same 50 years on.

Bad weather events, such as floods and heatwaves, are as old as recorded history, and do not prove there is a climate crisis.

Nothing Labour do will change the climate. Whatever they do will be as pointless as doing a raindance every morning.

Please put proof that the 'climate crisis' is real.

Ignoring the misinformation (lies) re Leeds and London, the truth is that Parliament is more concerned about fixing the 14 years of mess left behind by the Tory charlatans and thieves. 

The riots have been widely reported @Teignpot.

I wish Labour would fix the disasters of the last 14 years (really 25 years) but they won't and will just add to them.

And now we have that buffoon Ed Miliband forging ahead with his idiotic plan to cover large swathes of agricultural land with solar panels, all in the name of "climate change".  We might get a bit of electricity but we will be losing an awful lot of food production.

@Teignpot

So you are saying Leeds and London can burn because the government is incapable of doing two things at once.

@burneside, the law of  unintended consequences comes to mind. Ed Miliband may have good intentions, or he may just be following Al Gore’s playbook which made him a lot of money; either way it is a terrible idea.

The best place to put solar panels is on rooftops and in car parks. Using farmland is ridiculous given the UK is not self-sufficient in food and how dense the population is.

@Steve I agree, solar panels on all S facing rooftops whether residents homes or public buildings would be best from our point of view, but not best from the big 6 energy firms' shareholder's dividends perspective, which is why they don't care about using productive farmland or population density. The establishment wouldn't want ordinary people to generate their own energy, they need us to be compliant consumers.

The big energy companies aren't stopping anyone from putting solar panels on rooftops or carparks as far as I am aware.

Solar PV isn't cheap, solar thermal should be installed first following engery efficiencies to the home iike drausght exclusion and insulation, more affordable steps to conserve energy usage.

Heavily subsidized solar panels aren't going to happen in this country, there's too much money to be made by the big 6 who pull the strings of the government and likely have ministers as shareholders or mates of shareholders in the 'old boys' network. Then again any government that did faciltate people breaking free from the monopoly of the energy firms would probably be labelled Communist or Marxist on this site.

Who is doing the subsidising if everyone is meant to have it? You can't subsidise yourself.

If the technology represented value for money then everyone would adopt it. It doesn't so they continue getting their energy cheaper from the energy companies.

And millions of workers own those shares in their pension funds.

@Steve I see what you mean on subsidizing. But ss everyone meant to have what? Solar panels? Not everyone has a suitable rooftop aspect, so looking at it from the individual homeowner perspective means roll-out would be limited, plus not everyone would be able to invest heavily up front even if the tech resulted in lowered bills in the long-term. Anyway I'm approaching this from a climate change isn't a hoax stand point. You think it is, so why would you be bothered about collective reduced energy usage across an entire nation? Just universally lower bills?

Subsidies are awarded by government/public authorities and yes I agree it's technically our money. Same for grants and funding for charities, social entreprise, community benefit societies, etc if they fulfil certain social and environmental criteria - and many of these take thge piss awarding themselves high salaries while relying on volunteers. Companies providing public services should be reinvesting a certain percentage of profits for the benefit of society, with a long-term strategy. Do you think the current system with the Big 6 energy providers is working? Same for South West Water and the likes of Stagecoach buses or any number of rail operators. The consensus is that CEOs and shareholders are taking the piss. District Councillors met SWW the other day but weren't allowed to ask questions about dealing with sewage outspill. It's all pretty corrupt.

Most people with pensions probably have no idea where they're invested.

And the technology could represent value for money if public benefit was prioritized over the profit margins of private companies. This is where all the cranks shout Communist no doubt, as if social democracy isn't a thing. In any case technology isn't always the solution and some new tech has its own set of problems such as solar pv storage requiring lithuim mining and the associated child labour in the poorer global south.

@Steve Why would owners of detached houses and bungalows with large rooftops get a subsidy? That's not what I'm suggesting at all, in fact it'sd better if not approcahed from the perspective of individual private homeowners, but rather from a community perspective and their collective needs.

And I agree with you about subsidies going to those who can afford it, landlords, etc, many of whom are politicians.

The rapid melting of polar ice caps, sub arctic tundra, glaciers in the Alps, Himalyas, and increased frequency of floods downstream in places like Bangladesh, not to mention the destertification of many areas and farmers having to adapt, transitioning to different crop species all over the globe is evidenced by scientific data. Prediction models are limited and once past a tipping point it's unchartered territory and very difficult to model.

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 mankind is just wishful thinking of those that want to have greater control over people's lives. Climate models prove nothing. Even the IPCC admits that.

@Steve There's a consensus on anthropogenic climate change being fact. The rate of change is unprecedented - 200 years worth of industrialization and burning fossil fuels is having an impact. Your voice is in the minority as is those of a few others on here who believe in some global conspiracy. And why should anyone take you seriously? what's your background? What do you do for a living? Are we meant to believe you because you're some wise elder?

Your argument about subsidies is based on the status quo which is corrupt and linked to individualism, so I'm not in any disagreement. I'd argue for transformational change and that starts with dealing with corruption - then a community based approach could be taken. There's no need to keep telling me what we have currently, I already know.

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.

"Facts are not determined by consensus. Ideology and politics are." I never said they were. If you don't trust climate science do you trust any science at all?

"Saying the climate has been changing since the dawn of time is not a conspiracy." I never said anything to this effect, you're misinterpreting.

"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." People will always fight back against corruption and tyranny, it's part of life's struggle and without it no progress would ever occur. On some occasions corruption is ended before another cycle begins. Power corrupts of course, that's probably linked to human nature, but we are evolving all the time. I'm hopeful. You sound defeatist.

"The individual is actually best suited to decide how their income should be spent." Depends on the individual doesn't it. Someone with a gambling or shopping addiction might not be the best suited for example and it depends on whether a person's individual priorities are harmful to wider society. The individual is also part of wider society, so should also consider actively participating in that collective as their own individual betterment is intrinsically linked to others, we're a social species. On that note, if you and others are so concerned about climate misinformation and a possible hoax then why don't you self organize, protest, write to your MP, Councillors and offer some counter-evidence and educate folk? If it's so important you'd take action, rather than going over the same old ground on obsucure websites like Dawlish.com. It probably doesn't really matter to you, other than a subject to moan about.

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 a hoax?

I think we can all agree we need to fund essential services. Most of what we are funding now is not that and hasn’t been for a long time.

@Steve I was just pointing out you're in the minority. It's up to you what you trust or not. But if you come on discussion forums questioning climate science I assume you're looking to discuss it.

So you don't trust the global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change.

Do you trust the scientific and medical fields on their cancer research?

I mentioned global conspiracy in relation to others on this site, I didn't specify you think there's a conspiracy. I can only assume you question science in general then. Including what scientic peers consider rigorous methodology that can be iterated and verified.

I don't think it's a hoax. Many others on this site do however and are pretty vocal. If you think the scientific argument for anthropgenic  climate change is flawed and incorrect and you don't trust any consensus in the scientific field then what's going on? dD you believe people are being deceived by a powerful elite or has everyone got it so terribly wrong?

I apologize if you feel bracketed as a conspiracy theorist or believer of a hoax, but you can see why I made that association.  So what in your opinion is going on then?

Most people I encounter who doubt the science have links to professions and industries that have large energy and emissions footprints, such as the construction industry. So there's denial and guilt and possibly fear for their children, grand children, etc, but they'd seldom admit it. But there's no blame, if anything we're all responsible. Climate change communication is flawed being too much doomsday messaging, scientific jargon that overwhelms and yes there is blame in the messaging and I don't question that it's being used politically.

If you question the science you have to check the validity of the research, the credibility of the reserachers and institution, the methodology, etc. Equally I'm all for listening to the other side of the argument, so I'm interested in the backgrounds of those who question the science to understand their position and or motives. Are you a scientist?, is this your field of expertise? Or are you a builder or someone who worked in the aviation industry for example? It just gets a bit tiresome when it's the same old stuff on dawlish.com. If you're saying you don't trust the climate change consensus, then why? What do you lnow that we don't? Or is it just a feeling? And give me some credit, a lot of people wouldn't engage in any discussion with people who think it's not to be trusted (in your case), and the conspiracy theorists in the case of others. If you've all got some inside information than can you divilge it? Or is it just some gut feeling? If it's the latter then that's really about a persons individual psychology and nothing evidence based.

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point

@Steve Well that's your belief, and that's all it is a belief. Considering the majority or governments, businesses and the public around the globe accept the science on anthropogenic climate change, I'd suggest you arre in the minority. Either way if you feel so strongly, why don't you do something about it?

Most economists don't understand that environmental sustainability is not possible with rampant, unsustainable economic growth on a planet with finite resources, so I could point the finger of fallability at those economists and multinational corporations and of course us the consumers. The difference is that the scientific community doesn't wield significant power and is damaging thje planet - and I'm not solely talking about emissions but the loss of biospheres and many plant and animal species, as well as pollution, etc

So if you don't know anything about the global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change what gives your argument any credibility? Or is it just a 'feeling' you have?  It'd be useful to know exactly what your background is and whether you worked in a sector such as aviation or the construction industry, something I asked previously.

Scientific methodology that is not rigorous and flawed is easily criticized, you do know all papers with any credibility are peer reviewed? And sharing the methodolgy means they are iterative and can be repeated and put to the test by other scientists in institutions across the globe. If you have identified a lack of rigour, then where?

And the 'most people in academia are left of politics' argument gets really tiresome too. If you mistrust academia and possibly further education in general then you may as well not trust any science and in fact any higher level learnng in general.

I assume you visit a GP? That's around 7 years of university education. Do you trust him or her? Do you accept what they tell you and do you take the medication they prescribe? Careful now they earned their degree by working hard in a university, which according to you makes them a leftist academic. The people who understand economics you refer to would've studied the subject at universities - are they all leftists?

You may drive a car, so it could be implied that you put a great deal of trust in university educated engineers every time you drive somewhere.

The whole anti-academic, anti-intellectual thing is baseless and hypocritical, especially when so many aspects of daily life depend upon university educated people in society, many of whom since 1998 have to go into considerable debt to gain qualifications that benefit society. No wonder so many Doctors and other qualified people are emmigrating.

All humans are fallable, however it's far harder to get away with scientific papers that present erroneous,  false and misleading data when critical enquiry and scrutiny ensure rigour in scientific research. Some scientist may have ceded any credibility by being on the payroll of petrochemical industries, the automotive sector, etc, but they're easily exposed, lose any credibility they once had and ruin their careers. The checks and balances are in-built.

I'm far more wary of politicians, media moguls, billionaire oligarchs and CEOs of large corporate entities who are prone to lie and peddle misinformation, than I am of scientific researchers. And I don't see why celebrities are relevant, why would they know anything about economics?

It's your belief, it's factual to say that the climate has changed throughout history, but that's not what we're discussing. Anthropogenic climate change, means human caused; why is that so abstract for some people or are they just in denial? Humans have had other effects that have impacted the planet from plastics in every square km of the oceans to mass deforestation and pollution, all of which is measurable, so why not in the atmosphere too?

Or are the polar ice caps not melting at an unprecedented rate? Is this just fake news? Are indigenous peoples in the arctic being paid to lie to us all? Or have they really seen dramatic changes in a couple of generations? Is the footage staged in some Hollywood studio, did the moon landing even happen too?

So you think that 200 years of industrialization and the release of greenhouse gases in such a short time frame has zero effect? If that's the case then you must surely suspect that climate sceience is a hoax or there's a conspiracy. Otherwise how would it be co-ordinated on such a grand-global scale, across rival nations and distinct cultures? It's just too far-fetched.

You wrote that most people in academia are on the left. Why do you care so much about celebrities, can't you ignore them?

Re-read my points about your background, GPs, etc, see if it makes sense a second or even a third time. I can't be any clearer and I'm not repeating myself.

There's a fair amount written about climate/environmental anxiety, depression and mental health in general; it's not true that nobody mentions it. Mental health issues are linked to all sorts of things, the climate is but one factor. What about modern lifestyles? Western society and it's norms, the pressure to 'succeed', pay the bills, put food on the table, a roof over your family's head in the age of austerity. Maybe there's something very wrong with an economic system that only favours a small wealthy minority whilst simultaneously treating the planet as if we have a planet B, C and D's worth of resources waiting in reserve.

Which climate activists?, which group? Some do more good than others. they're not all the same and some should rightly be criticized.

I seriously doubt there's much chance of rehabilitation in the UKs overcrowded prisons, most of these activists will likely come out more traumatized than when they went in and present mental health challenges they didn't have before. You've got a peculiar view on our prison system.

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 if they are forced to only use renewable energy. They are already poorer because of the money that has been diverted into funding climate change that could have gone into funding essential services like prisons. It's not an economy, it's the economy.

@Steve, you either lack a sense of humour, cannot follow a thread or are just prone to misunderstanding. Or you just twist it to your supposed benefit to save face or avoid actual discussion. I'm not saying the moon landings were staged. I'm referring to it to highlight your lack of trust in anything climate change related that attributes it to human activity. I asked if you thought indigenous populations in the arcitic regions who report drastic changes that are in line with the science, were being paid to say these changes were happening. I refer to the moon landings hoax example as maybe you and others think footage of shrinking ice caos and polar bears loss of hunting grounds isn't actually real. I don't really not what you think is real and factual or not.

I'd be more than happy if the was no climate catastrophe, but you've not presented any convincing argument for that - it just seems like you have a feeling, a hunch and that you know better than most, including climate scientists and researchers in a field you admit you know nothing about. So not very convincing.

I agree that climate hysteria is being used to further ideological causes however, but I don't see how some globally co-ordinated agenda is possible, that's be a hoax or conspiracy on a massive scale, even if you prefer not to be associated with those two terms.

People are poor because of the policy of austerity, which is all about shifting any wealth ordinary folk gained back into the hands of the powerful few. I don't care for all this right vs left stuff, it just seems neo-feudal to me. Public services are costly, the elite would rather our taxes flowed into their pockets, not into hospitals, schools, welfare, etc that is actuall of any benefit to common folk. Maybe look at the corruption and tax avoidance of those who hold the majority of wealth in this country.

It depends which form of renewable energy you refer to. tech isn't always the answer, boring solutions like draught proofing and insulation are - and only certain forms of insulation can be considered green or ecologically sustainability. Net zero and carbon neutral are largely bollocks, if it were done properly it would be a carbon gamble; I mean wind turbines depend on steel plants, transporation, infraestructure projects led by construction firms. Energy has to be expended somewhere. Yet  I know people who will buy energy saving light bulbs and then illuminate their whole bloody house for over a month around Christmas time at a time of fuel poverty and a cost of living crisis and a supposed climate emergency. Then again I know many people who go into debt each Christmas based on wants and not needs and spend the rest of the year paying off credit card bills just to repeat the whole stupid cycle.

The right renewable energy could lift people out of poverty and provide people with decent jobs, though that'd require a radically different system from the one we have and it'd require people to think about the collective and not just about their own individual needs and maybe those of their family, Humanity would require a massive evolutionary leap for that to happen. If anything we're probably regressing discussing it on sites like Dawlish.com

I'm happy to end this discussion here. ta v. much for chatting. You obviously feel strongly about climate predictions going back to the 70s, maybe you should start a pressure or campaign group with other like-minded people and take some action so prisons, etc can be properly funded.

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 perspective on the subject.

@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 just wanted to understand things better from your perspective. People on here refer to it as a hoax or a conspiracy, you don't see it that way - fair enough, but you offer no valid reason why the science is flawed, so I can only assume it's just a feeling you have based on your observations in a small corner of the South West peninsula since the 1970s. If you'd offer any argument with substance there would be reason to be more hopeful.

I just think we've exhausted this topic, nothing personal, thanks for chatting.

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, 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 foundation. That's a reasonable request, it's not different to checking sources in reviewing a scientific paper or any academic research. So why get so defensive?

All we know is that you're 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. You're no authority on this subject.

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 your mind.

@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 background I studied environmentalism, climate change and adaptation to Masters level, so I'm intrigued when people question the science, especially when they admit they know nothing about that field. No doubt you will claim I'm some leftist given I went to uni.

Do you really want to keep this conversation going? Is there any point? It's up to you if you want the last word.

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 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 terms in any case, which becomes really tedious.

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 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 the Westcountry, with an unknown background and what amounts to a 'feeling' and suspicion based on their own lack of trust, which is more to do with an individual's psychology. Given the weight of evidence from around the globe that looks highly unlikely. Your ire would be better directed at politicians and the fourth estate  who chose to communicate climate change in ways that suit their political and economic needs, rather than directing it at the scientific community itself.

I've not written anything about you that you hadn't written above yourself.

This is what I have had to keep referring back to;

"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."

So if you don't know anything, how can you understand? The sweeping generalizations and belittling of the scientific and academic communities show your argument is weak, baseless and full of bias.

If you agree to disagree, why leave another comment that you know will lead to further disagreement? I don't need anything pointing out from someone who I disagree with - what you consider 'wrong' I may not, that's the nature of two people not agreeing. Anything I've written above isn't in order to convince you, I just don't appreciate you stating what I 'believe' in, it's annoying. Speak for yourself, not me or anyone else.

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.

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 distrust of academia, you're probably the sort of bloke who says he hates students - and then makes an appointment with your GP who is only a GP having studied medicine at uni. Yet the irony of that is clearly lost on you.

Now stop wasting my time. You're just here to antagonize for the sake of an argument.

@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" using big words to try amd bambozzle people as if he is the arbiter of all knowlege.Juding by the length of his responses he has no other outlet of communication and sits at his keyboard  all day hoping to get responses. 

@1263 How's that grudge coming along? Which words are bamboozling you?

My post 17.01 response 17.08 nuff said.

@1263 Thanks, always lovely chatting with you.

You are right @1263. I don't really know what he's laughing about since what he's put in bold is completely different to what he put in subsequent posts.

If you search "global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change" it returns practically nothing, just 1 pdf in google. Nothing in other search engines. So it's hardly some scientific authority, even though there are no such things. If you remove the quotes you get the usual endless nonsense about scientific consensus on climate change.

@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 economics. Some scientists even lie believe it or not.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point";

Yes, but that isn't the same as

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"

No one seems to know anything about the "global scientific community on anthropogenic climate change".

@SteveThe 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 that's all. Not some political agenda, that's what you mean right?

So I see what you mean now. You actually thought I was referring to some sort of institution called the Global Scientific Community, well if I was it would've been capitalized, sorry to disappoint but I wasn't as that doesn't exist. I referred to both the global scientific community and the scientific community interchangeably in any case.

I'm quite surprised you thought that and actually googled a sentence I'd written thinking it was an institution nor agenda. I can see why the crossed wires now, but that's some paranoia you've got. I use 'global scientific community' in loose terms. I could've written the 'scientific field globally' instead.

And on the rest of it, do you know anything about science, scientific methodology, the subject of climate science and rigour in research? I asked about your background, but you seem unwilling to divulge if you have any expertise in these areas.

Then again if you did have any expertise you'd already know there's no organization called the Global Scientific Community and you wouldn't have done a web search.

You should have originally said scientific community. You wouldn't call an area of scientific study 'anthropogenic climate change' because you would be implying the cause of the phenomenon you were trying to study. I realise people do that, which is another reason to be highly skeptical of work with that phrase in it.

Who doesn't understand science these days? It's basically taught from school.

@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 based on a huge body of work globally. You write about fallability, but you seem unable to accept that humans can negatively effect their own environment and the anthropocene refers to more than just emissions, e.g. it would include sewage in our rivers and beaches and mass species extinctions, but you may doubt any of that's reall too. No other species pollutes like us and erradicates other species to the same extent.

So you've got an O Level in science and seeing as you remember the 70s you're how old? I doubt anything climate related linked to human activity was on the curriculum when you were young. In any case an O level or GCSE is hardly on a par with in depth research by Phd students and professors in world reknowned universities, but the according to you they're just a bunch of leftists anyhow.

I've had enough. Bye.

I'm not dictating. You said yourself you meant the scientific community and not the community you originally wrote that doesn't exist.

I never said anything about having O Levels or GCSEs. Climate alarmists always resort to ad hominem attacks.

Sorry, but humans don't cause the weather. Bye.

@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.