Has Nigel Lawson lost it?

[Flosshilde]

Whether Mr Lawson is right or wrong it is refreshing to hear one ... even in a vastly-reduced physical state ... stand up to the climate-change bullies

In what sense are they bullies? And, bullies or not, if they are right what's the point in someone 'standing up to them' if he is completely wrong and could wreck any attempts to eleviate or halt the damage climate change might do?

Or do you think that someone should fulfill the role of 'Devil's advocate'?

self-righteous and scientifically-unproven dogma!

well, you'd know all about that!

[P. G. Tipps]

In what sense are they bullies? And, bullies or not, if they are right what's the point in someone 'standing up to them' if he is completely wrong and could wreck any attempts to eleviate or halt the damage climate change might do?!

In what sense, Flosshilde? In the sense that they bully others to conform to the received wisdom of 'climate change', I submit. This may take a number of forms but it is generally in the form of ridicule and scorn, a favourite weapon of the bully! Whilst I have already accepted that the bullies may well be right, it is also just possible that they are wrong? To assume anything can easily make an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me', Flosshilde!

Or do you think that someone should fulfil the role of 'Devil's advocate'?

Until a scientific claim is proven beyond doubt scientifically surely a sort of secular 'Devil's Advocate' position should be considered de rigueur if only for the general credibility of science itself?

I would sincerely hope that such a vital and essential safeguard would be employed by a lot more than just 'someone', Flosshilde!

well, you'd know all about that!

Thank you, Flosshilde, that's so kind ... however, I am really far too modest to accept such a flattering accolade, especially from your goodself.

[Flosshilde]

In what sense, Flosshilde? In the sense that they bully others to conform to the received wisdom of 'climate change', I submit. This may take a number of forms but it is generally in the form of ridicule and scorn,

What ridicule & scorn? Statement of facts, yes, but I haven't noticed any ridicule or scorn. No doubt you could skim the internet & find some?

secular 'Devil's Advocate'

your goodself.

[ahinton]

In what sense, Flosshilde? In the sense that they bully others to conform to the received wisdom of 'climate change', I submit. This may take a number of forms but it is generally in the form of ridicule and scorn, a favourite weapon of the bully!

Ignorance and wilful selectivity of approach are two more. Whilst there remain some who insist that climate change is not, or mainly not, man-made and the unarguable and comprehensive proof or disproof of that may not quite be with us yet, the fact remains that very few people believe that there is no climate change at all, howsoever caused; your suggestion, however, that 'climate change' is a "received wisdom", as enhanced by your use of ' ' around the term, would appear to imply that you are one of those few and that, if so, you undermine the plausibility of suchever arguments as you might otherwise have had on the subject.

[P. G. Tipps]

Ignorance and wilful selectivity of approach are two more. Whilst there remain some who insist that climate change is not, or mainly not, man-made and the unarguable and comprehensive proof or disproof of that may not quite be with us yet, the fact remains that very few people believe that there is no climate change at all, howsoever caused; your suggestion, however, that 'climate change' is a "received wisdom", as enhanced by your use of ' ' around the term, would appear to imply that you are one of those few and that, if so, you undermine the plausibility of suchever arguments as you might otherwise have had on the subject.

On the contrary, ahinton, I've already at least hinted at a measure of quite deliberate neutrality on a subject I know absolutely nothing about. The majority argument on anything can be (and often is) proved wrong over time so hence my understandable caution.

However, if I may so, the needlessly defensive tone of your post and its apparent objection to my referring to 'climate change' as 'received wisdom' (which it clearly is, as you yourself refer to non-believers as the 'few'!) may indicate something of the sensitivities to challenge that many 'acceptors' appear to so often display?

[ahinton]

On the contrary, ahinton, I've already at least hinted at a measure of quite deliberate neutrality on a subject I know absolutely nothing about. The majority argument on anything can be (and often is) proved wrong over time so hence my understandable caution.

However, if I may so, the needlessly defensive tone of your post and its apparent objection to my referring to 'climate change' as 'received wisdom' (which it clearly is, as you yourself refer to non-believers as the 'few'!) may indicate something of the sensitivities to challenge that many 'acceptors' appear to so often display?

The logic of your conclusion that the fact that few do not believe that climate change is occurring reveals it to be a "received wisdom" is far from apparent and the deliberate neutrality and lack of knowledge of the subject that you claim has clearly done nothing to encourage you to question your perception of climate change as a "received wisdom". There is also nothing inherently "defensive" in the tone of my post.

[P. G. Tipps]

What ridicule & scorn? Statement of facts, yes, but I haven't noticed any ridicule or scorn. No doubt you could skim the internet & find some?

Plenty enough ridicule and scorn on here without wasting my time skimming the internet, Flosshilde!


<secular 'Devil's Advocate'>

<your goodself.>

Maybe you've decided to start a forum Puzzle of the Week, Flosshilde ... ?

[Flosshilde]

Just a bit of linguistic analysis, Scotty.

[ahinton]

Just a bit of linguistic analysis, Scotty.

Just as a matter of (admittedly not all that much) interest, do you (and others who identify the Tippster and the Scottster as duobus unus) really believe that, had scottycelt wanted to resume membership of this forum, he'd not have done so under the same forum ID?

Anyway, to return to the topic, I just felt like throwing in the thought that Nigel Lawson could not really have lost it if he'd never possessed it in the first place...

[P. G. Tipps]

Just as a matter of (admittedly not all that much) interest, do you (and others who identify the Tippster and the Scottster as duobus unus) really believe that, had scottycelt wanted to resume membership of this forum, he'd not have done so under the same forum ID?

Absolutely, ahinton ... what refreshing logic! <thumbs up>

It is inconceivable that he/she could possibly have done anything else ... ?

[visualnickmos]

"Lost it"
Did Nigel Lawson ever even have it?

[amateur51]

Ahhh, and all this self-confessed 'serious digging around' on Google from the member who recently roundly berated another for daring to provide a link in support of his point on another thread!

Oh hard chizz scotty, the hard digging referred to was by the people mentioned in the article - shame you didn't read it, so keen were you to score your point.

[P. G. Tipps]

Oh hard chizz scotty, the hard digging referred to was by the people mentioned in the article - shame you didn't read it, so keen were you to score your point.

Ahhh ... silly, silly me ... I should have known self-effacement has never really been a particularly celebrated forum quality in some cases, so apologies for suggesting you would ever even dream of scouring on-line Google/Guardian links for some unusual and revealing little anti-Tory titbit!

At least the point itself does seem to have registered which, I suppose, is something of an advance in relation to our own particular inter-planetary discourse, however temporary that advance will almost certainly prove to be?

Still, nil desperandum, Agatha!

[jean]

I don't think that's scotty - the tone is all wrong.

[ahinton]

I don't think that's scotty - the tone is all wrong.

I've said as much several times but it seems to have fallen on blind ears...