ElBurroSinNombre
flatpack - the point I made is that Global warming is happening a point that you actually acknowledge. If the new environment secretary is really a 'climate change sceptic' then he would not accept this basic tenet which flys in the face of all the available evidence.
I don't know who you know who denies that the planet is warming but none of the people I've read about on either side of the AGW debate claim the planet isn't warming.
I do not want irrational and ignorant people making the laws of this country. That is why I labeled him as anti-science.
What's anti-science about rejecting the core tenets of the AGW argument? You don't even know his grounds for rejecting them, which could be sound (sounder than, say, the Stern report).
I don't know or care who Jeremy Leggett is but I am not surprised that as a business man he lobbies the government - just like the many other business interests that you probably wouldn't describe as 'socialist / green ' or 'vile extremists'.
My point was that the government is being lobbied by both sides of this argument - businesses who want to keep their fuel and running costs low, and people (including businesses) who want taxpayer subsidy for wind turbines and solar panels.
^Your rather strange views on education betray your binary thinking;
state = bad, private = good^
If only life were that simple.
No, my views one education are - state = mediocre bordering on poor, private = better.
Life is that simple. The state education system fails huge numbers of pupils, particularly those at the bottom but also those at the top, or even those in the middle whose personal circumstances don't fit the ideal.
Objecting to too many privately educated people at the department for education is like objecting to too many obstetricians in a maternity ward.