Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?
Discussion
Camoradi said:
Seventy said:
Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis
garyhun said:
I know people have talked about her parents making a fortune off the back of her, is that true?
A good question and one I don't understand either - how are the people (and who) who are profiting from this crap?If anyone has the time, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate a better understanding.
Camoradi said:
Seventy said:
Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
Given the past recipients of Time Person of the Year, I wouldn't necessarily this as a win for Greta anyway. She joins Jo Stalin and Richard Nixon...I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
I note that Abu Bakr-al-Baghdhadi was a runner up a few years back, but was beaten by Angela Merkel for her handling of the migrant crisis
Seventy said:
Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
Thrilled for her. She best be more careful with the photo shoot locations.. after all sea level rise is accelerating..coastal area risks are increasing. The documentary "The Day After Tomorrow" provides ample evidence of this.I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.
Scotty2 said:
Why on earth when educated scientists can't make up their minds should I listen to an unqualified inexperienced teenager with behavioral issues???
No Climate emergency, just slow natural change with a smidgen (perhaps) of our input.
How much nasty gasses do volcanoes produce...
Now you've done it! The Faithful will be along to gang up on you and call you a Denier any minute!No Climate emergency, just slow natural change with a smidgen (perhaps) of our input.
How much nasty gasses do volcanoes produce...
Scotty2 said:
Why on earth when educated scientists can't make up their minds should I listen to an unqualified inexperienced teenager with behavioral issues???
No Climate emergency, just slow natural change with a smidgen (perhaps) of our input.
How much nasty gasses do volcanoes produce...
Why not do some research into what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying? There is a consensus. No Climate emergency, just slow natural change with a smidgen (perhaps) of our input.
How much nasty gasses do volcanoes produce...
Greta Thunberg is endeavouring to get politicians to take note of the science and take more immediate action.
Clearly you can chose to ignore her but she isn’t addressing you in any case so it hardly matters what you think of her.
Personally I am content to go with the science as the risk of not taking action is too great, albeit I’m unlikely to be around in 30-40 years time unlike Greta.
Nickgnome said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.Stating that there was consensus between the hospital oncology teams would have been wrong.
What's your point?
When someone convinces me that ALL the factors have been taken into account and verified, I may review my position.
However, Earth has cycles, precession, natural events, slowing rotation chaotic weather behaviour, moving tectonic plates, meteor impacts to name a few in a short time which I do not believe have been modeled.
(A brighter man than me once created a spreadsheet for calculating the depth of a Nitrogen Brine interface at below ground. Densities, temperatures, pressures, flowrate, water content, surface area e.t.c. all factored in to give an answer. Guess what? We had to add an extra "fiddle factor" column into the sheet to get the sheet to be even close to reality!)
Call me a Denier if you like but for me it's a case of "Not Proven" and we should not waste money and resources on Canute type schemes.
By all means develop renewable alternatives because we believe fossil fuels are finite, and we will need to fossil fuels for two generations to allow the alternates to be developed.
Ah, I feel better now.
Scotty2
(CChem, MRSC, by the wa,y for what it's worth so not a complete numpty*)
However, Earth has cycles, precession, natural events, slowing rotation chaotic weather behaviour, moving tectonic plates, meteor impacts to name a few in a short time which I do not believe have been modeled.
(A brighter man than me once created a spreadsheet for calculating the depth of a Nitrogen Brine interface at below ground. Densities, temperatures, pressures, flowrate, water content, surface area e.t.c. all factored in to give an answer. Guess what? We had to add an extra "fiddle factor" column into the sheet to get the sheet to be even close to reality!)
Call me a Denier if you like but for me it's a case of "Not Proven" and we should not waste money and resources on Canute type schemes.
By all means develop renewable alternatives because we believe fossil fuels are finite, and we will need to fossil fuels for two generations to allow the alternates to be developed.
Ah, I feel better now.
Scotty2
(CChem, MRSC, by the wa,y for what it's worth so not a complete numpty*)
- others may disagree
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.Stating that there was consensus between the hospital oncology teams would have been wrong.
What's your point?
You have been unclear as to the variance between the diagnoses so impossible to comment. There are known centres of excellence like the Royal Marsden and assume you ascertained the one most local to you and went there.
Coincidentally many years ago my Dad was diagnosed with kidney cancer in his mid 50s. His GP suspected it and the consultant confirmed the diagnosis. This was 1977 so we’ll before some of the technology available today. He took the advice and one kidney was removed completely. He died in 2012 at the age of 87 not from cancer.
garyhun said:
Nickgnome said:
There is a consensus.
Stating the above does not make it fact.If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.
By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.
Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.
I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff