Interesting, and obviously true. Why is it not "obviously true" to the powers that be?
Answer: It probably is. But having hitched their credibility to the AGW myth, when that seemed, for a while, to make sense, they will not find it easy to admit that they were wrong.
"Answer: It probably is. But having hitched their credibility to the AGW myth, when that seemed, for a while, to make sense, they will not find it easy to admit that they were wrong."
Hmmm.... some may think it's a tad more sinister than that - AGW is a great excuse to increase government control over the ordinary chap in the street.
Mo
"Answer: It probably is. But having hitched their credibility to the AGW myth, when that seemed, for a while, to make sense, they will not find it easy to admit that they were wrong."
Hmmm.... some may think it's a tad more sinister than that - AGW is a great excuse to increase government control over the ordinary chap in the street.
Mo
I do seem to recall, Mo, that at one time you were leaning towards the AGW argument.
What was it that changed your mind as a matter of interest?
Bulldog,
I hate running with the crowd.
Mo
Bulladog - I should add that I'm firmly in the 'don't know' camp.
BUT I really object to being told by politicians, civil servants and other jumped up nobodies that the science is settled as far as GW is concerned. It is anything but settled.
I reckon that, over the course of the 4.5 bn years that our planet has been in existance, the climate has been subject to continual change (lots of Southern Britain is made of sandstone, that should give us a few clues).
As such, phrases such as 'FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE' are rather insulting to the intelligence of most thinking people.
Mankind has adapted to climate change in the past (usually buy moving South).
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Mo
