We have been here before Glidd. I accept that we may have some small part to play in climate change but that natural cycles are probably by far the dominant factor. I do not accept that the science is beyond challenge, the way in which it has been presented is emotive and often wrong, dissent is not tolerated. I am surprised that you do not see the way in which the 'green' agenda has been hijacked for political gain.
The green agenda may have been hijacked for political gain. But that doesn't make it wrong or unbelievable. The dissent to which you refer is a tiny minority. You don't expect scientists who reckon to have pretty much proven their point to accord equal weight to opposing viewpoints (any more then I do). Why are natural cycles probably by far the dominant factor? That isn't what the current thinking is.
Since alchemists tried turning lead into gold, scientists work on supposition and experiments.... When nobody comes forth to disprove or challenge their findings, their results become fact......on the basis of a theory. Over a period of time those theories may be 'disproved' by an alternative theory or the scientist may even admit he has changed his mind........ ......if you or I did something like that, we would be labelled as being 'wrong'. .... but the scientist passes it off because he has intellectual superiority and therefore he can't be labelled a being 'wrong'.
A Theory is an explanation for a set of phenomena that has been observed, can be observed and can be repeated. It is no more than the best explanation for the phenomenon based on our current evidence and knowledge. Theories are constantly being tested and checked by other scientists. If you or I came up with an explanation for a set of phenomena without the benefit of Scientific endeavour or research it could not be described as a theory with any degree of accuracy, it would be a hypothesis.
Watch it, Shadow. You're veering perilously close to intellectual superiority there. Scientists rarely deal in facts, as far as I can tell. They deal with data and interpretation and theory. Any theory can and will be challenged by the scientific community when data is found that conflicts with theory. Things get thrown out or revised, as required.
OK.......I hypothesise that my theory is correct and until someone disproves it....etc etc etc:wink: Looks like my degrees are worthless.
It all depends on what they are in. My French and Spanish degree is worthless in astrophysics. Not worthless when it comes to French into English translation. Over and above this though, a degree is meant to teach you critical thought, or at least mine was, which you can apply to any field. If I choose to rubbish Jean-Paul Sartre's work, in the face of a body of researched and reasoned thought which has long extolled its merits, I was taught that I'd better have some pretty good and credible evidence backing up my hypothesis. Just to say "I think he's rubbish" wouldn't get me very far.
Pay your taxes if you legally have too. Don't pay them if you don't legally have too and don't want too. The same rules for everyone, some use them differently and achieve different outcomes than the mass population. Morally, do what you feel is morally acceptable to you.
I have a degree in Environmental Science, from a long time ago. The earths systems are complex and interact in ways we are continuing to lean more about. Politics is at the root of everything.
The BBC report today that the Met Office say that statistics indicate that Spring 2013 will be the coldest for 50 years.......... .........I wonder what sort of degree was obtained to be able to make that statement......... ........'kin cold one, I reckon.
That is perfectly true as regards the duties of company directors. But it is also true of all citizens generally. We are all legally obliged to act in certain ways on pain of punishment - but apart from that there is no general requirement to act morally, or fairly, or in the interests of the country, or in the interests of our employees, customers, neighbours or friends. Laws are specific; they forbid acts of violence, theft, fraud, etc and require compliance with set rules. If there were general laws about vague and disputable concepts like being moral and fair, the work of the courts would be difficult indeed!
interesting programme on radio 4 re taxation. KPMG is a huge company of which some of their services are to avise on tax avoidance for customer's. one of the directors is also on the advisory committee to the government re tax laws etc. no room for bias there then...
