In Which I Do Not Win £100

I will give 100 pounds to anyone who can explain why Peter Lilley claiming that there is increasing public doubt about climate change amongst the public provides any direct evidence that climate change is natural. - Said Hopi Sen pouring contempt on the Expresses list of 100 reasons Global Warming is Myth

I had a go ...

Its not that hard The list makes only a hazy distinction between a centralising coercive political agenda and the evidence they pay scientists to produce. This reflects ordinary usage, just as Elven Safety covers a complex of busy bodying not always caused by the particular legislation.
Here is where I claim my £100“ Climate change is man made “ in fact contains a complex of associated assertions . It would be reasonable define it was follows :“ Expert evidence and democratic mandate , justify the elite assuming powers to act at state, and super state level to protect us from an environmental WMD threat and if individual areas of choice must be eroded so be it ““ Climate change is natural “ contains a refutation of all the elements including the democratic mandate .Peter Lilley is indeed refuting the assertion that “ Climate change is man made “ as properly understood .
You will no doubt want to hide in the narrow scientific meaning of the phrase but that is not how language works
I take cash Hopi
hopisen
I’m afraid that redefining the words “climate change is man made” to mean “Hopi really likes pies” doesn’t mean I have to pay out if one of the things on the list is “Climate change is natural because Hopi Prefers Cake to Pie.”
I’m looking for something more like “Public doubt over the importance of climate change is evidence that climate change is natural because X”
Where X is not factually incorrect, circular, tautalogical or just mumbo jumbo.
So for example, if you could truthfully say “because peer reviewed studies prove that the best way to decide scientific truth is by show of hands”, I’d write you the cheque straight off.
Newmania
I am not defining it Hopi I am using ‘Componential analysis’ .Example :
I will give a further £100 to anyone who can explain……..
This contains the meaning – the thing is not explicable ,and ‘my’ certainty is so complete as to incline me to make offers that are comically out of character as I am well known to be tight as a shark arse”
I`ll settle for fifty and we can call it quits ?
hopisen
I think you lost the point about “not defining it” when you said “it would be reasonable to define it as….”.
PS you should be glad I think like this, as it means that if another commenter _says_ some people think you should be banned, I won’t take that as _evidence_ that you should be banned.
Newmania
.A Dictionary contains definitions , I used define in that sense . You used it in a sense that is the polar opposite which is to alter rather than explicate meaning . Tough stuff eh think what its like if its not even your first language .
Its not an ‘entirely’ specious point . Most people do understand ‘man-made global warming’ to be the hair shirted slogan of global collectivist despotism by those who regard a “Show of hands “ which I call democracy , as an inconvenience .No distinction is made between the science and the politics which according to their view generates the “science “. I partly agree , and I certainly cannot replicate your Bambi eyed worship of any strong man wearing a lab coat
You say this is not the case but that’s the subject not the answer . What were the most significant words in the Stern Report “Commissioner by HM Treasury ?” or the mumbo jumbo of speculative tea leaf reading it contained . You see no connection between the discussion we are having now and the command and control, agreement which Gordon Brown has just arrived to take a bow at , of course you do .Not to do so would be childlike .
You are incredibly naive to imagine the scientists are outside politics and by the way the actual, level of green taxes has dropped since 1997 from 9.45 to 7.7% (last year) reflecting the non interest of one Gordon Brown in the whole subject except when justifying bulldozing though planning procedures or passing power to the EU.
I am all for sensible environmental taxation reflecting externalities which convinces me of the case more than any number of big government financed renta boffins . To do so we have to lower the tax regime . Keep your £100 I would not take your doctrinally sullied payola . I cannot be bought