. Opinion requires another “adjective: delusional”.
I ran a successful law practice for many years, and when precluded by health from continuing, my years of service were recognised by an honorary life membership of the Law Society. A small part of my health regime, in retirement, is the mental activity gained from participation in discussions on the web.
Our failed engineer projects his frustration on to others, rather than face the reality, that he could never make anything of himself, and has developed into a delusional troll, his faith in the climate fraud, for which he has no science, seems to be his sole consolation in life. People, on the forum, feel sorry for him. I believe he needs regular kicking in the backside. He is a “never was and never will be”

Dear Leo Lane,

I am extremely happy with the way things have turned out for me. I would have been extremely unhappy if I had decided to try to become a successful engineer. Reason is I see engineering as just a trade, like law, architecture, etc. I wanted to do something more than work in a trade all my life like you and I wanted to do something interesting with my life instead. I have achieved that end. So I'm quite happy.

Did you know that an honest lawyer is an oxymoron?

By the way, there is a discussion section in Forum called 'Law and Liberties'. Maybe you could concentrate your attention there. At least it's an area you actually know something about.

The delusional one:“ I wanted to do something interesting with my life instead. I have achieved that end. So I'm quite happy.”
He decided that he did not wish to do anything useful with his life, so he collected a few useless degrees, and became a climate fraud supporter,sustained by ignorance of science, or dishonesty, since there is no science to support his position. He is a “never was and never will be”.
What a clown.

Dear Leo Lane,

I did my Arts degrees because they involved interesting subjects like archaeology, anthropology, history, sociology, classics, philosophy, etc and not because I needed to make money. I did a trade degree i.e. engineering for that purpose. Just like you did a trade degree in law.

I use my Arts degrees every day to help me work out why things are happening in the world. You are only a lawyer so you don't understand how that works. I look at the world through the medium of my Arts training whereas most of the lawyers I have come across look at the world through the bottom of a gin bottle.

Mr. Opinion.
I agree that the subjects you studied are important to intellectual development. I attended to that by reading, sometimes by following a topic, and sometimes by following an author. This occupied many lunch hours. The internet enabled me to find books easily, before that it was by trawling second hand bookshops. Nietzsche and Jung were helpful models in understanding how life works for human beings.
James Fraser, I consider, was the father of anthropology, which is a relatively new discipline, and I took to heart his statement that the importance of studying primitive tribes, was that it enabled us to see how our ancestors lived. Current anthropology seems to have strayed from the path.
Napoleon Chagnon produced an excellent study of a primitive Amazon tribe, and was severely criticised for it by the Anthropology elite. I have yet to read his account of his experience of the tribal savages compared to his experience with the anthropologists, but look forward to reading his book.
Certain behaviour, I believe, is hard-wired into the human psyche, which enables me to understand how a blatant fraud like the climate travesty can gain so much traction in our society.

MrOpinion

I reject your mind-reading, and your last post contains nothing else. You wouldn't have the faintest idea of my subjective thoughts or motivations, what I do for a living, or how happy I am.

You are only demonstrating that your Arts degree never taught you what logic is, and you think it means your arbitrary opinion backed up by personal insult.

Your argument is only that we face catastrophic man-made global warming *because* Jardine K. Jardine, an anonymous poster on the internet, is a bad person.

When I say that is stupid, it’s not a term of abuse, but only mere description.

Answer the question you dishonestly evaded. Do you understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on logical fallacy including appeal to authority, or not?

Bugsy
What ad hom? Read what Mr Opinion wrote. He's openly telling us that he rejects critical or independent thinking, and arguing to the effect that no-one is entitled to form an opinion on anything, because *he* feels *he* must just slavishly follow the opinion of people who he thinks know more than him, even if he can demonstrate they're logically incorrect. He's using the same intellectual methodology as a dark ages peasant. Look up the definition of ad hom, because this argument doesn't contain any. My insults are not the premise of my argument, but the conclusion based on the sheer anti-rational stupidity of what he’s openly saying.

All
Notice how ALL warmist argument, when challenged, simply degenerates into personal argument? Challenged about their illogic and interested corruption, the economics, the ecology, the ethics, they have nothing but endless slogans and evasion. All they have is abusing people for not believing what they believe. They openly admit that they reject independent thinking, and argue that people should just suspend their critical thinking and blindly follow authority.

There argument is simply this:
Warmists: "The globe faces catastrophic man-made global warming!"
Skeptics: "Prove it."
Warmists: "Deniers! Lunatics! Bastards! Losers! Know-it-alls!"
Skeptics: "How do you know the globe faces catastrophic man-made global warming?"