I guess they think we forget.

Yes I am over 50 years old, and yes I have heard most of it - all before.

For around 20 years, before "global warming" and the new terminology "climate change", there were other things you could not have any control of, other things you were supposed to worry about, just because it was in the MSM copy paste news.

For a few decades it was the "ozone layer" and a supposed hole in it, a naturally occurring one, blamed on aerosol cans. Then there was the never ending prediction, in the news daily and weekly, that we would run out of oil in 50 years!.....

The odd part about the running out of oil articles, were that over more than a decade, they remained at 50 years! Not going down, year upon year, as logic would dictate.

Where are all the pseudo scientists now, regarding the ozone layer, well naturally, they are now "funded" to provide data with regards climate change, it would seem.

When is a scam a scam, when scientists are funded to provide data, to meet a certain agenda, or criteria!.....

Whilst politicians can tax people, to help the climate, to me, it will never work out. Whilst on holiday last summer, having arrived at a forest location, after paying in advance too, I was hit with a tax, before I could get the keys to my temporary residence, the tax? You guessed it, environmental tax, carbon foot print and all that jazz, so that TAX when I asked where it went, I was told to the EU. What will they do with this money? Drink it most likely, you know, to help the environment.

Interestingly, that tax, that government funding via new taxation, was what started the now 15 weeks is it? Yellow vest protests in France. When will poli-ticians learn, never it seems.

In my lifetime.

I have heard via the so called news, that salt is bad for us, then a few years later, salt is good for us, Alcohol is bad for us, a glass of red wine a day is good for us. Are they confused, or agenda driven??????? Like I said before, whilst funding is reliant on outside markets, scientists are open to being persuaded, that a result indicates favorably - in any direction the funder wants.

I have been researching how they manipulate findings, and it seems to come down to using lower amounts of samples for a study, though using more variables than the actual amount of samples, lets say if it were a study on people, instead of using 100 thousand people, and 20 questions, you use 20 people, and 100 questions, then you can draw any conclusion you want, due to the low amount of samples, or in this case people, yet the large amount of questions!!!...

Whilst a tax, any tax, is applied to anything, I am unlikely to believe the study behind the tax, the findings are tainted from the off, if it is only for political gain, and that will remain my stance for ever, you may choose differently, of course.

So whilst every day I see climate change warnings, I look out of my window and see nothing new, the same weather year upon year, with a few anomalies along the way, the odd hot day in winter, though I can remember a 17 year old me, with the roof down on my Triumph Spitfire, on the 23rd - 12 - 1983, and 20 degrees heat, in Essex, so what has changed? for the most part, the UK got colder, and more rain.

@shepz1 has a surprise visit from his mother, so is off to Krakow to pick her, up, catch you when I catch you, have a superb weekend too.