On 20/01/18 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 09:13, JoeJoe wrote:
On 20/01/2018 08:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear
on the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

Educated? PPE and Media Studies hardly prepare you for anything other
than a job at the BBC and/or in politics.


Well exactly. Educated as in 'bin 2 uni' doesnt mean you are even worth
having sex with.

...and you wonder why anyone who can do and/or understand anything more
complicated that 2+2 is automatically believed and referred to as a
Maths (or just general science) "genius" by the media.

The great leap forward of postwar socialism was to give money to the
lower middle class irrespective of whether they could do anything useful
or not.

Naturally the corporations mounted huge advertising campaigns to tell
them what to think and what to buy.

And how clever they were.

It was in the end a wonderful way to control the masses. Buy off the
leaders and give them knighthoods etc and get them to talk utter
******** (in the right sort of regional accents) to the plebs, who would
believe it all, especially if they were told that believing it was
fahionable, or smart, whilst you raked in money from them by selling
tham tat, which you then used to buy politicians and more 'working
class heroes*' and ensured that all science was in the end government
funded, or funded by big corporations, so all scientists' jobs depended
on them getting the 'right answers'.

Once upon a time 'natural philosophers' were either educated gentlemen
of independent means, parsons with livings, or people who did science as
a hobby.

Whilst they risked their reputaions, they didnt risk their livelihoods.

Narurally socialism's first target was gentlemen of inependent means,
followed by parsons...

...and persons who do science for a hobby,m are dismissted as 'not being
professionals' Or something.



*"You think your so clever and classless and free, but you're all
****ing peasants, as far as I can see" (John Lennon: Working Class Hero)

Your use of the word 'socialism' is remarkably idiosyncratic. The
blessed Thatcher did more than anyone to advance the process you
describe, and was largely following America. You can call
globalisation and worship of the "free" market socialism if you want to,
but all it proves is that you think socialism is impossible.


No, ot really happened with Blair, not Thatcher, when Blair and Gore in
their different ways worked out how to subvert what little positives
there were in socialism and environmentalism and bring them both in as
tools of corporatins.

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.