Sorry Hoppy... I should have said bacteria - of all people you would know that viruses don't form colonies. I guess I unthinkingly said virus cos most folk know they are much smaller than bacteria
Yep, you are of course correct and I was taking the p**s.
I'm still astonished, though, that you state things that I would regard as "opinions" as though they were self-evident "facts"........
To be honest, this whole argument about climate change puzzles me greatly. It seems to me that there are two prime factors at work. Firstly, is the climate actually changing, medium to long term. From what I can see, then there can be little doubt that it is. I'm a biologist, and no climate scientist, but I am persuaded that there is a significant and (in recent geological terms) unprecendented change in our climate occurring.
Secondly, what is causing it? Now, I see that this is more problematic. It's not an easy idea to swallow that human activity might be to blame (whether CO2, agricultural emissions e.g. cows farting or whatever).
The huge thing that I cannot understand is the "denial" aspect. Why be so vehement that it is all fabricated??
Why not carry out a thought experiment. OK, let us suppose that it is either true (that the planet is warming to dangerous levels, and human activity is a major factor), or that it is false, but there is a unification of governments (outwith the UN, obviously) who are controlling most of the world's scientists to fabricate a scenario where they can scare us into paying a bit more tax. So, what do we do? Do we say "bollox, I don't want to pay another penny", or do we say, "hang on, I'm not convinced about this. But...... If the scientists are right, then we are heading for a truly horrible situation for our children and grandchildren. If they are not right, then all it is going to cost me is a few hundred quid - which I can probably afford, and all will be well anyway"
In all seriousness, it isn't going to be tax that is the problem if climate change is happening. Most governments are just paying lip-service to it anyway, and carrying on regardless. But stopping the burning of fossil fuels will, at least in the short term, increase manufacturing and distribution costs. So, I reckon it's the cost of retail goods that might hit you, not tax. But what's alternative? Keep up the bluster that it's all ****?
To put it another way, think about monetary benefit versus risk.
I live in a cul-de-sac, in a hamlet of 14 houses. Very, very few vehicles come in and out each day. If someone said to me "put on this blindfold and headphones and run as fast as you can across the road. I'll give you £10,000 if you get to the other side" then I wouldn't hesitate. The odds would be vastly in my favour, and the amount of money would very handy although not life-changing. But, if someone offered precisely the same terms, except that I had to run blind across 6 lanes of a busy motorway, then again I would not hesitate - but this time to say "no way". The £10,000 wouldn't be life-changing, but the risk (of very much life-changing death or critical injury) would be far too high to chance it.
So, why risk a possibly planet-changing outcome for a limited financial benefit. I can see why global corporations might (their financial benefit might be far more than limited!!), but ordinary people? Especially if you have children & grandchildren - why would you try to get a small financial advantage for yourself, but potentially risk their entire future?
To quote Vonnegut, so it goes!
