|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 16, 2023 22:32:32 GMT
Seriously? You find one obscure extremist and call that science? The science is the many many years of studies and reports on it, any sensible person would understand that. *The* science is a phenomenon which started some time around 2020 and dismisses alternative studies, reports and skepticism, leading to perfectly eminent people in their fields being ridiculed, censured and cancelled while lunatics like the idiot in the tweet above are given free reign to spout garbage like that. You believe that? |
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Jul 16, 2023 22:34:33 GMT
Seriously? You find one obscure extremist and call that science? The science is the many many years of studies and reports on it, any sensible person would understand that. *The* science is a phenomenon which started some time around 2020 and dismisses alternative studies, reports and skepticism, leading to perfectly eminent people in their fields being ridiculed, censured and cancelled while lunatics like the idiot in the tweet above are given free reign to spout garbage like that. No. “The” science (or as it’s also known “the prevailing science”) has been around pretty much as long as “science” itself. It thrives on being proved wrong. In fact it invites challenge. That’s how it develops. At the moment, the overwhelming view of “the” scientists is as the bloke above suggests. It’s possible that that view will be discredited and superseded. That hasn’t happened yet but it cannot be ruled out. Similarly it is possible that the prevailing view that the earth is round could also be discredited. And you wouldn’t have to look too far to find someone prepared to claim the earth is flat. But until that happens, it is probably safe to assume it’s round. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 17, 2023 5:30:27 GMT
Seriously? You find one obscure extremist and call that science? The science is the many many years of studies and reports on it, any sensible person would understand that. *The* science is a phenomenon which started some time around 2020 and dismisses alternative studies, reports and skepticism, leading to perfectly eminent people in their fields being ridiculed, censured and cancelled while lunatics like the idiot in the tweet above are given free reign to spout garbage like that. The science has been going on for ever, not since social media started. People can pick any 1 thing out from social media with no real substance or data as a counter claim and people will believe it. Similar to that doctored photo you put up last year or so ago of the flood levels in the German town. |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 17, 2023 6:36:02 GMT
Surely must be time for my favourite Feynmann video now.
|
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Jul 17, 2023 7:18:04 GMT
The 'science' can be manipulated to fit any agenda as Covid so obviously proved. What I don't like is that a lot of science is educated guessing/speculating (which is fine) but then anybody disagreeing is treated like some sort of pariah.
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 17, 2023 7:32:07 GMT
The 'science' can be manipulated to fit any agenda as Covid so obviously proved. What I don't like is that a lot of science is educated guessing/speculating (which is fine) but then anybody disagreeing is treated like some sort of pariah. Perhaps you didn't watch the Feynmann video above. I accept it not everyone's cup of tea, although he is very entertaining. Guesses (hypothesis) are fine but when the hypothesis fails the experience/experiment the hypothesis is dead. End of story. If the hypothesis is vague it's not a well formed hypothesis. If it involves "moogles" or some made up idea. You can never prove a hypothesis is 100% correct but you can prove a bad one wrong immediately. You can't have a hypothesis without supporting evidence that's not science, that's just guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 17, 2023 8:17:38 GMT
The 'science' can be manipulated to fit any agenda as Covid so obviously proved. What I don't like is that a lot of science is educated guessing/speculating (which is fine) but then anybody disagreeing is treated like some sort of pariah. Science is not guessing. To qualify as a scientific theory it has to be "falsifiable" - ie it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be right or wrong. Scientific theories are not accepted as valid by the scientific community until there are experimental results that support the theory. Science is not about competing opinions, it's about theories that have survived the rigours of experiment. Climate deniers would like to reduce "science" to a choice of opinions because that's how they treat the science. They start with an opinion (I don't like the implications of global warming so I'd rather not believe it is a thing) and then seek out anything that out there that supports there preconceived opinion and then accuse those of us who choose to believe the scientific consensus of doing the same. The thing is that isn't how the science works. Global warming is an established fact - it's happening. Different groups of scientists have put forward different theories to explain the phenomena and undertaken independent experiments to determine which theories best explain what is going on. The consensus in the scientific community is the global warming is down to the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity and in particular the burning if fossil fuels. The scientific community didn't start out believing man made global warming was the answer and then selectively choose the papers that supported that view - they reviewed the studies and concluded that was the best explanation. And the testing and experimentation goes on. It isn't a done deal - a better theory may come along and if it better supports the experimental evidence the scientific consensus will change accordingly. As it is the evidence for man made global warming is increasing and there is currently no competing theory with same level of experimental support. Climate deniers want the science to appear ambiguous so play up the significance of outlier studies to make it seem the scientific community is divided and people can simply make a choice. The fact is the scientific community isn't divided - there is small number of scientists who don't believe global warming is man made but the overwhelming consensus is that it is and that consensus has the backing of the available evidence. Individuals have the right to hold the opinion that man made global warming isn't a thing but they can't claim the science supports their opinion and is therefore as equally a valid opinion as those that choose to accept the scientific consensus. The best explanation we can have about a physical phenomena is the one that has survived the rigours of the experiment and peer review by the scientific community. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. That statement about the scientific consensus is a fact, not an opinion. People can choose to ignore it and stick with climate change denial but going around claiming it has scientific credibility by cherry picking outlier studies that support that view isn't even bad science - it's confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Jul 17, 2023 8:37:41 GMT
The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. There isn't a consensus on the time scales involved though is there? - A serious problem in 10 years or one in 100 years has a vastly different impact on populations who will be asked to shoulder the burden of phasing out cheap fossil fuels. Sure developed nations might be able to manage this transition in a reasonable manner but for poorer developing countries, this is going to be extremely painful. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 17, 2023 8:59:43 GMT
The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. There isn't a consensus on the time scales involved though is there? - A serious problem in 10 years or one in 100 years has a vastly different impact on populations who will be asked to shoulder the burden of phasing out cheap fossil fuels. Sure developed nations might be able to manage this transition in a reasonable manner but for poorer developing countries, this is going to be extremely painful. If you are talking about the timescales over which man made global warming has been happening and the projected increase in temperatures in the future there is a scientific consensus. If you are talking about the timescales for transitioning away from fossil fuels in order to keep temperature rises within a range that will avoid global devastation there is also a scientific consensus. Where there is a disagreement is in what is practically and politically possible - they are technology and economic decisions requiring a global political consensus and at the moment there isn't one. If cheap fossil fuel alternatives are developed in the developed world they can be supplied to the developing world in a way that skips the dependency on fossil fuels that the developed world is locked into. In many ways it is harder for the developed world to make the transition because we are more dependant on fossil fuels. It's also the developing world that are least able to deal with the consequences of global warming because they haven't the capacity to deal with the consequences. They need to see the transition happen more than anyone and getting them hooked on cheap fossil fuels won't do them any favours - all it helps is the fossil fuel industry. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Jul 17, 2023 9:17:10 GMT
This thread got deep
|
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 17, 2023 9:34:55 GMT
The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. There isn't a consensus on the time scales involved though is there? - A serious problem in 10 years or one in 100 years has a vastly different impact on populations who will be asked to shoulder the burden of phasing out cheap fossil fuels. Sure developed nations might be able to manage this transition in a reasonable manner but for poorer developing countries, this is going to be extremely painful. There are some pretty accurate predictions of how fast we will achieve 1.5C of warming if we continue on an unabated trajectory or if we take some measures. The current research suggests that will happen in the 2030s. Additionally there is now a 48% probability that we will temporarily exceed 1.5C in one of the next 5 years. 1.5C is chosen because whilst it will change life for millions it is manageable. The difference in just half a degree to a sustained 2C is massive in ecological terms and for humans. At 1.5C the ice sheet may just survive somewhat but at 2.0C it will likely collapse. If that happens 10m increase of water levels would be experienced. As well as the flooding danger significantly more water is in the weather systems, with completely different weather latter's then predicted. That has a massive impact on global food production. At 1.5C 78% of coral will die at 2C 99%. If we can keep warming below 3°C we might remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, at 2.7°C warming we would experience incredible hardship. news.stanford.edu/2023/01/30/ai-predicts-global-warming-will-exceed-1-5-degrees-2030s/ |
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Jul 17, 2023 9:40:31 GMT
it's just warming up fella |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 17, 2023 11:38:07 GMT
The 'science' can be manipulated to fit any agenda as Covid so obviously proved. What I don't like is that a lot of science is educated guessing/speculating (which is fine) but then anybody disagreeing is treated like some sort of pariah. Science is not guessing. To qualify as a scientific theory it has to be "falsifiable" - ie it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be right or wrong. Scientific theories are not accepted as valid by the scientific community until there are experimental results that support the theory. Science is not about competing opinions, it's about theories that have survived the rigours of experiment. Climate deniers would like to reduce "science" to a choice of opinions because that's how they treat the science. They start with an opinion (I don't like the implications of global warming so I'd rather not believe it is a thing) and then seek out anything that out there that supports there preconceived opinion and then accuse those of us who choose to believe the scientific consensus of doing the same. The thing is that isn't how the science works. Global warming is an established fact - it's happening. Different groups of scientists have put forward different theories to explain the phenomena and undertaken independent experiments to determine which theories best explain what is going on. The consensus in the scientific community is the global warming is down to the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity and in particular the burning if fossil fuels. The scientific community didn't start out believing man made global warming was the answer and then selectively choose the papers that supported that view - they reviewed the studies and concluded that was the best explanation. And the testing and experimentation goes on. It isn't a done deal - a better theory may come along and if it better supports the experimental evidence the scientific consensus will change accordingly. As it is the evidence for man made global warming is increasing and there is currently no competing theory with same level of experimental support. Climate deniers want the science to appear ambiguous so play up the significance of outlier studies to make it seem the scientific community is divided and people can simply make a choice. The fact is the scientific community isn't divided - there is small number of scientists who don't believe global warming is man made but the overwhelming consensus is that it is and that consensus has the backing of the available evidence. Individuals have the right to hold the opinion that man made global warming isn't a thing but they can't claim the science supports their opinion and is therefore as equally a valid opinion as those that choose to accept the scientific consensus. The best explanation we can have about a physical phenomena is the one that has survived the rigours of the experiment and peer review by the scientific community. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. That statement about the scientific consensus is a fact, not an opinion. People can choose to ignore it and stick with climate change denial but going around claiming it has scientific credibility by cherry picking outlier studies that support that view isn't even bad science - it's confirmation bias. That is 100% spot on. Even the oil companies back in the 70s knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would lead to global warming. They have worked very hard since to shut down the research facilities which identified this problem and spent fortunes lobbying to argue against what they knew perfectly well to be true. news.sky.com/story/exxon-predicted-global-warming-in-1970s-despite-publicly-dismissing-climate-change-research-finds-12785585#:~:text=News%20%7C%20Sky%20News-,Exxon%20predicted%20global%20warming%20in%201970s,dismissing%20climate%20change%2C%20research%20finds&text=Scientists%20working%20at%20oil%20giant,research%2C%20a%20study%20has%20found. As CBUFA says, the over-riding 'rationale' for those still denying that climate change is a man-made phenomenon is simply that they don't want it to be true. That's it. And even more importantly, they don't want to have to change their lifestyles and therefore choose not to believe the reality. It's incredibly selfish and very short-sighted. I'm reading a book about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis at the moment, in which the military top brass hawks were all constantly pressing JFK to launch air and ground attacks on Cuba, knowing that this would probably trigger global thermonuclear war between the US and USSR. The author makes the telling point that the only saving grace for these people was that, in the event that they got their way, there would be nobody around afterwards to tell them how wrong they'd got it. The same can be said about climate change. There'll be no Oatcake, no twitter, no Daily Express comments section to take the piss out of the starkillers, the knypes, the badgers and all the rest of the naysayers...we'll all be too busy hunting for the last can of baked beans down the only local supermarket that hasn't been razed to the ground by desperate people wondering what happened to civilisation...right now we're just at the very start of people migrating in their millions and you can already see the tensions it's causing. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 17, 2023 11:42:49 GMT
There isn't a consensus on the time scales involved though is there? - A serious problem in 10 years or one in 100 years has a vastly different impact on populations who will be asked to shoulder the burden of phasing out cheap fossil fuels. Sure developed nations might be able to manage this transition in a reasonable manner but for poorer developing countries, this is going to be extremely painful. There are some pretty accurate predictions of how fast we will achieve 1.5C of warming if we continue on an unabated trajectory or if we take some measures. The current research suggests that will happen in the 2030s. Additionally there is now a 48% probability that we will temporarily exceed 1.5C in one of the next 5 years. 1.5C is chosen because whilst it will change life for millions it is manageable. The difference in just half a degree to a sustained 2C is massive in ecological terms and for humans. At 1.5C the ice sheet may just survive somewhat but at 2.0C it will likely collapse. If that happens 10m increase of water levels would be experienced. As well as the flooding danger significantly more water is in the weather systems, with completely different weather latter's then predicted. That has a massive impact on global food production. At 1.5C 78% of coral will die at 2C 99%. If we can keep warming below 3°C we might remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, at 2.7°C warming we would experience incredible hardship. news.stanford.edu/2023/01/30/ai-predicts-global-warming-will-exceed-1-5-degrees-2030s/Either that or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope it all goes away. Or better still find a website that says it isn't true and when the seas do rise just blame Bill Gates. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 11:45:58 GMT
Science is not guessing. To qualify as a scientific theory it has to be "falsifiable" - ie it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be right or wrong. Scientific theories are not accepted as valid by the scientific community until there are experimental results that support the theory. Science is not about competing opinions, it's about theories that have survived the rigours of experiment. Climate deniers would like to reduce "science" to a choice of opinions because that's how they treat the science. They start with an opinion (I don't like the implications of global warming so I'd rather not believe it is a thing) and then seek out anything that out there that supports there preconceived opinion and then accuse those of us who choose to believe the scientific consensus of doing the same. The thing is that isn't how the science works. Global warming is an established fact - it's happening. Different groups of scientists have put forward different theories to explain the phenomena and undertaken independent experiments to determine which theories best explain what is going on. The consensus in the scientific community is the global warming is down to the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity and in particular the burning if fossil fuels. The scientific community didn't start out believing man made global warming was the answer and then selectively choose the papers that supported that view - they reviewed the studies and concluded that was the best explanation. And the testing and experimentation goes on. It isn't a done deal - a better theory may come along and if it better supports the experimental evidence the scientific consensus will change accordingly. As it is the evidence for man made global warming is increasing and there is currently no competing theory with same level of experimental support. Climate deniers want the science to appear ambiguous so play up the significance of outlier studies to make it seem the scientific community is divided and people can simply make a choice. The fact is the scientific community isn't divided - there is small number of scientists who don't believe global warming is man made but the overwhelming consensus is that it is and that consensus has the backing of the available evidence. Individuals have the right to hold the opinion that man made global warming isn't a thing but they can't claim the science supports their opinion and is therefore as equally a valid opinion as those that choose to accept the scientific consensus. The best explanation we can have about a physical phenomena is the one that has survived the rigours of the experiment and peer review by the scientific community. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. That statement about the scientific consensus is a fact, not an opinion. People can choose to ignore it and stick with climate change denial but going around claiming it has scientific credibility by cherry picking outlier studies that support that view isn't even bad science - it's confirmation bias. That is 100% spot on. Even the oil companies back in the 70s knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would lead to global warming. They have worked very hard since to shut down the research facilities which identified this problem and spent fortunes lobbying to argue against what they knew perfectly well to be true. news.sky.com/story/exxon-predicted-global-warming-in-1970s-despite-publicly-dismissing-climate-change-research-finds-12785585#:~:text=News%20%7C%20Sky%20News-,Exxon%20predicted%20global%20warming%20in%201970s,dismissing%20climate%20change%2C%20research%20finds&text=Scientists%20working%20at%20oil%20giant,research%2C%20a%20study%20has%20found. As CBUFA says, the over-riding 'rationale' for those still denying that climate change is a man-made phenomenon is simply that they don't want it to be true. That's it. And even more importantly, they don't want to have to change their lifestyles and therefore choose not to believe the reality. It's incredibly selfish and very short-sighted. I'm reading a book about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis at the moment, in which the military top brass hawks were all constantly pressing JFK to launch air and ground attacks on Cuba, knowing that this would probably trigger global thermonuclear war between the US and USSR. The author makes the telling point that the only saving grace for these people was that, in the event that they got their way, there would be nobody around afterwards to tell them how wrong they'd got it. The same can be said about climate change. There'll be no Oatcake, no twitter, no Daily Express comments section to take the piss out of the starkillers, the knypes, the badgers and all the rest of the naysayers...we'll all be too busy hunting for the last can of baked beans down the only local supermarket that hasn't been razed to the ground by desperate people wondering what happened to civilisation...right now we're just at the very start of people migrating in their millions and you can already see the tensions it's causing. I don’t eat baked beans ya berk! |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Jul 17, 2023 11:51:11 GMT
Science is not guessing. To qualify as a scientific theory it has to be "falsifiable" - ie it makes predictions that can be tested and shown to be right or wrong. Scientific theories are not accepted as valid by the scientific community until there are experimental results that support the theory. Science is not about competing opinions, it's about theories that have survived the rigours of experiment. Climate deniers would like to reduce "science" to a choice of opinions because that's how they treat the science. They start with an opinion (I don't like the implications of global warming so I'd rather not believe it is a thing) and then seek out anything that out there that supports there preconceived opinion and then accuse those of us who choose to believe the scientific consensus of doing the same. The thing is that isn't how the science works. Global warming is an established fact - it's happening. Different groups of scientists have put forward different theories to explain the phenomena and undertaken independent experiments to determine which theories best explain what is going on. The consensus in the scientific community is the global warming is down to the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity and in particular the burning if fossil fuels. The scientific community didn't start out believing man made global warming was the answer and then selectively choose the papers that supported that view - they reviewed the studies and concluded that was the best explanation. And the testing and experimentation goes on. It isn't a done deal - a better theory may come along and if it better supports the experimental evidence the scientific consensus will change accordingly. As it is the evidence for man made global warming is increasing and there is currently no competing theory with same level of experimental support. Climate deniers want the science to appear ambiguous so play up the significance of outlier studies to make it seem the scientific community is divided and people can simply make a choice. The fact is the scientific community isn't divided - there is small number of scientists who don't believe global warming is man made but the overwhelming consensus is that it is and that consensus has the backing of the available evidence. Individuals have the right to hold the opinion that man made global warming isn't a thing but they can't claim the science supports their opinion and is therefore as equally a valid opinion as those that choose to accept the scientific consensus. The best explanation we can have about a physical phenomena is the one that has survived the rigours of the experiment and peer review by the scientific community. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is happening and it is man made and we have to do something about it or the consequences for human life are devastating. That statement about the scientific consensus is a fact, not an opinion. People can choose to ignore it and stick with climate change denial but going around claiming it has scientific credibility by cherry picking outlier studies that support that view isn't even bad science - it's confirmation bias. That is 100% spot on. Even the oil companies back in the 70s knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would lead to global warming. They have worked very hard since to shut down the research facilities which identified this problem and spent fortunes lobbying to argue against what they knew perfectly well to be true. news.sky.com/story/exxon-predicted-global-warming-in-1970s-despite-publicly-dismissing-climate-change-research-finds-12785585#:~:text=News%20%7C%20Sky%20News-,Exxon%20predicted%20global%20warming%20in%201970s,dismissing%20climate%20change%2C%20research%20finds&text=Scientists%20working%20at%20oil%20giant,research%2C%20a%20study%20has%20found. As CBUFA says, the over-riding 'rationale' for those still denying that climate change is a man-made phenomenon is simply that they don't want it to be true. That's it. And even more importantly, they don't want to have to change their lifestyles and therefore choose not to believe the reality. It's incredibly selfish and very short-sighted. I'm reading a book about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis at the moment, in which the military top brass hawks were all constantly pressing JFK to launch air and ground attacks on Cuba, knowing that this would probably trigger global thermonuclear war between the US and USSR. The author makes the telling point that the only saving grace for these people was that, in the event that they got their way, there would be nobody around afterwards to tell them how wrong they'd got it. The same can be said about climate change. There'll be no Oatcake, no twitter, no Daily Express comments section to take the piss out of the starkillers, the knypes, the badgers and all the rest of the naysayers...we'll all be too busy hunting for the last can of baked beans down the only local supermarket that hasn't been razed to the ground by desperate people wondering what happened to civilisation...right now we're just at the very start of people migrating in their millions and you can already see the tensions it's causing. What an obsessed whopper! |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 17, 2023 14:31:55 GMT
I've never wanted you to believe anything particular. And I'm far from miserable. There is no climate catastrophe to worry about. Just another in a long list of false predictions of apocalyptic doom. So if it could be left this way with no authority expecting me to pay more or restrict life in some way, everything is good. The thing is the majority of governments believe there is a climate catastrophe because, unlike you, they have chosen to taken on board the scientific evidence rather than suck up the claptrap on some random websites. Even those responsible for global warming, the fossil fuel industry, know full well that they are causing it and are diversifying while at the same time holding back progress to maximise profits. The thing is if you do nothing you will either frazzle with the rest of us or have to suck up the behavioural changes governments will have to impose to stop it happening. Fortunately those changes will happen (probably way too late to save millions of lives) so your leave me alone stance isn't going to pan out. If you don't want the "conspirators" to get away with it you are going to have to do something. So what are you going to do? You mean the same 'governments' that arrive at 'climate' jollies like this? And also multimillionaire co2 con cult high priests Kerry & Gore. If this is 'taking on board the scientific evidence' then my stance seems just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 17, 2023 17:52:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 17:55:23 GMT
And not an “assault” in sight. It really is all the police need to do |
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 17, 2023 18:03:42 GMT
Enough of this environmental science bullshit.
Where are the videos of members of the public pushing dweebs about?
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 18:04:44 GMT
Enough of this environmental science bullshit. Where are the videos of members of the public pushing dweebs about? It’s “dorks” mate😉 |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Jul 17, 2023 19:41:18 GMT
Enough of this environmental science bullshit. Where are the videos of members of the public pushing dweebs about? That's the best thing I've seen you post 😁😉 |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jul 17, 2023 19:41:36 GMT
Needs to get his footwear sorted….not enough of a stable base if you are going to start throwing people about. Get yourself some boots fella and you’d be far more effective 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 19:44:27 GMT
Needs to get his footwear sorted….not enough of a stable base if you are going to start throwing people about. Get yourself some boots fella and you’d be far more effective 😂 He was effective enough, a pair of toe tectors though and he’d be a different beast! |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 17, 2023 20:38:36 GMT
Needs to get his footwear sorted….not enough of a stable base if you are going to start throwing people about. Get yourself some boots fella and you’d be far more effective 😂 He was effective enough, a pair of toe tectors though and he’d be a different beast! I reckon I could destroy him. On another note though. How do you not believe in climate change? It's clear as a hot summers day. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 20:49:01 GMT
He was effective enough, a pair of toe tectors though and he’d be a different beast! I reckon I could destroy him. On another note though. How do you not believe in climate change? It's clear as a hot summers day. I’ll believe a hot summers day when I see one! I don’t have an answer to your question sorry, other than I’d like to see more concrete evidence other than being told it’s a thing. I realise you feel strongly about it but I’m just not sure of anything regarding climate change |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 21:00:24 GMT
I reckon I could destroy him. On another note though. How do you not believe in climate change? It's clear as a hot summers day. I’ll believe a hot summers day when I see one! I don’t have an answer to your question sorry, other than I’d like to see more concrete evidence other than being told it’s a thing. I realise you feel strongly about it but I’m just not sure of anything regarding climate change What kind of concrete evidence are you looking for? There have been hundreds of scientific publications on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 17, 2023 21:02:38 GMT
I’ll believe a hot summers day when I see one! I don’t have an answer to your question sorry, other than I’d like to see more concrete evidence other than being told it’s a thing. I realise you feel strongly about it but I’m just not sure of anything regarding climate change What kind of concrete evidence are you looking for? There have been hundreds of scientific publications on the matter. He needs the mother of all sunburns. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 17, 2023 21:04:28 GMT
What kind of concrete evidence are you looking for? There have been hundreds of scientific publications on the matter. He needs the mother of all sunburns. I’ll be honest, it’s one of the last things on my mind so maybe that’s it |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 17, 2023 23:57:22 GMT
My first and possibly last comment on this Fred Are these Activists still Dorks or now Realists in light of current Heatwaves in Europe and US or is the intensity and frequency of these Heatwaves something that we should have no concern for. Or its summer season? It'll be cold in November too. Sneaks back to thread 👀 Posts Knype Interview uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/local-man-gives-bizarre-response-103923520.htmlWithdraws quietly 👀 |
|
