4 ms·
I parrot the parent post's question and nobody likes it. If you think GW is a man made disaster, then you need no qualifications. If you don't, there aren't e
by IanDrake 7y ago
I parrot the parent post's question and nobody likes it.
If you think GW is a man made disaster, then you need no qualifications.
If you don't, there aren't enough qualifications on earth for your opinion to matter.
- take_a_breath 7y agoThe people quoted in the article are named and have their titles presented. We are able to research their history and expertise if we desire. An anonymous poster on the internet has neither name or qualifications. When the anonymous poster posts "they find it far easier to believe" a theory counter to an article, knowing their qualifications helps level the playing field. If you had to choose between investing advice from a named financial expert or from me, an anonymous internet poster, you would be wise to either go with the named expert (who you could research their qualifications) or ask me for information on my expertise.
- IanDrake 7y agoWe must have read different articles. This article has no climate scientist mentioned. These are business people who are talking more about legislative risk and consumer trends than loss from GW related events.