Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 16 October 2009, 23:11:01
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys.
You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
-
The mask falls from the climate change zealots ,revealing the real reason behind the religion - neo global socialism. ;)
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys. You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys.
You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
-
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
....everything Optio, when the proposals suggest that this 'help' will impinge in a prejudicial manner on the wellbeing of those in the developed nations.
Furthermore it never ceases to amaze me that irrespective of the apparent poverty, depravation and lack of opportunity in these 'disadvantaged’ nations the ruling elite always seem to be well catered for.
Funds diverted for the proposed purposes of helping such nations invariably find their way into the coffers of the ruling elite. Just examine the track record of any branch of the UN in this regard.
-
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
...who would be such an authority then Optio - in your view?
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING.(
....and I will amplify that cry :y :y
I can see the totality of this threat but the majority won't and will declare the articles as fanciful paranoia. They are far from it.
Any one who sits down to think about the state of the planet at the moment can't fail to see that there is a subtle change being made to the present convention.
With the global nature of commerce, finance and more importantly communications, national borders have become less of a restrictive factor. That is the back door through which any attempt to establish a more cohesive global movement will be made.
People do need to be informed but it does seem that contrary arguments are slowly beginning to be disseminated to a sleeping populace however it will be an up hill task as the international establishment has stolen a march in the propaganda stakes.
Globalisation is the new nationalism, and it’s being made possible through scare tactics over economic problems, security problems and concern for the environment. It’s such an audacious and elegant project if it weren’t so threatening to personal liberty.
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys. You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
"The price tag for a new climate agreement will be a staggering $100 billion a year by 2020, many economists estimate; some put the cost at closer to $1 trillion. That money is needed to help fast-developing countries like India and Brazil convert to costly but cleaner technologies as they industrialize, as well as to assist the poorest countries in coping with the consequences of climate change, like droughts and rising seas."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=4&hpw
There are NO consequences of climate change like rising sea levels and drought that require such sums of money. Name one.
As for saying "what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate", have you checked out the amount of foreign aid that we (the Western industrialised) cough up each year?
Look if you want a socialist one-world government, then come out and say it. I don't and I never will. >:(
-
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
....everything Optio, when the proposals suggest that this 'help' will impinge in a prejudicial manner on the wellbeing of those in the developed nations.
Furthermore it never ceases to amaze me that irrespective of the apparent poverty, depravation and lack of opportunity in these 'disadvantaged’ nations the ruling elite always seem to be well catered for.
Funds diverted for the proposed purposes of helping such nations invariably find their way into the coffers of the ruling elite. Just examine the track record of any branch of the UN in this regard.
Agreed Zulu......I take it ...........that you are speaking of corruption (....or human nature as I prefer to call it) ::) ::) ::)
But in my opinion .......it would be an even more unsatisfactory alternative to do nothing. :) ;)
-
Although I won't get into the climate change debate .... I will comment on the "overseas development" part .. :(
In my previous employment I traveled extensively in both Africa and India, as well as many other parts of the world.. but I'll stick with those 2 for now. They both recieve an enormous amount of "aid" money from the UK Government and Charities... who, for reasons known only to themselves .. deal with the distribution in totally different ways.
Charities usually have a focused target and a small team to reach that target. The Government, for some unknown reason, refuse to "dictate" how the money is ACTUALLY spent (it is asked for a specific project .. but no checks are made) as this would "impinge on the sovreignty of the nation" ('dangle berries' !)
Thus the governement money is spent on, for example ... an "infrastructure project" .. which is actually a 7 mile dual carriage way from the rulers palace to the airport .. no other access roads or anything ... 7 miles for 1 man ... but of course his "entourage" is a dozen vehicles.
In most of these countries there is no "middle class" at all .. there are the poor and the rich and the rich control the money and ensure they get the majority of it.
Pigs in troughs comes to mind.
-
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
...who would be such an authority then Optio - in your view?
Not a single individual... Zulu..........but we have a choice between thirty years ........or more.....of eminent scientists.....and climatologists......looking into global warming.....or......Nickbats lot. ::) ::) ::)
I 'am quite willing to be proved wrong however. :y :y :y :y
-
Agreed Zulu......I take it ...........that you are speaking of corruption (....or human nature as I prefer to call it) ::) ::) ::)
But in my opinion .......it would be an even more unsatisfactory alternative to do nothing. :) ;)
[/quote]
...a natural consequence of the method of governance in those nations but it also is a result of rank mismanagement, lack of imagination, closeted thinking and blind acceptance of the status quo by those charged by such august bodies as the UN with disseminating funds to help those in need.
Rather than pump endless funds into the dubious economies of 'underprivileged' nations I would have thought that the UN would have been better placed to strive to seek a more professional, caring and responsible administration in each of such nations.
-
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
...who would be such an authority then Optio - in your view?
Not a single individual... Zulu..........but we have a choice between thirty years ........or more.....of eminent scientists.....and climatologists......looking into global warming.....or......Nickbats lot. ::) ::) ::)
I 'am quite willing to be proved wrong however. :y :y :y :y
You will be. But, by then it may well be too late. :(
-
Agreed Zulu......I take it ...........that you are speaking of corruption (....or human nature as I prefer to call it) ::) ::) ::)
But in my opinion .......it would be an even more unsatisfactory alternative to do nothing. :) ;)
...a natural consequence of the method of governance in those nations but it also is a result of rank mismanagement, lack of imagination, closeted thinking and blind acceptance of the status quo by those charged by such august bodies as the UN with disseminating funds to help those in need.
Rather than pump endless funds into the dubious economies of 'underprivileged' nations I would have thought that the UN would have been better placed to strive to seek a more professional, caring and responsible administration in each of such nations.[/quote]
August...and corrupt..
-
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
...who would be such an authority then Optio - in your view?
Not a single individual... Zulu..........but we have a choice between thirty years ........or more.....of eminent scientists.....and climatologists......looking into global warming.....or......Nickbats lot. ::) ::) ::)
I 'am quite willing to be proved wrong however. :y :y :y :y
...working to who's agenda I wonder Optio :-/ :-/
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys. You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
"The price tag for a new climate agreement will be a staggering $100 billion a year by 2020, many economists estimate; some put the cost at closer to $1 trillion. That money is needed to help fast-developing countries like India and Brazil convert to costly but cleaner technologies as they industrialize, as well as to assist the poorest countries in coping with the consequences of climate change, like droughts and rising seas."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=4&hpw
There are NO consequences of climate change like rising sea levels and drought that require such sums of money. Name one.
As for saying "what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate", have you checked out the amount of foreign aid that we (the Western industrialised) cough up each year?
Look if you want a socialist one-world government, then come out and say it. I don't and I never will. >:(
Not for me thanks.(we actually agree on this point) ;) ;) ;)..........but the idea that unbridled.......unregulated......... market forces capitalism takes us all to Utopia.....is laughable........it has clearly failed. :-/ :-/
-
For open-minded readers:
http://euro-med.dk/?p=11097
-
Optimist writes: "market forces capitalism takes us all to Utopia.....is laughable........it has clearly failed."
Why then, are the cleanest countries, environmentally-speaking, all capitalist?
::) ::)
-
I have just had to Google this guy..... ::) ::)......climate change sceptic.....big time...Not a major authority in my view. :) ;) ;)
...who would be such an authority then Optio - in your view?
Not a single individual... Zulu..........but we have a choice between thirty years ........or more.....of eminent scientists.....and climatologists......looking into global warming.....or......Nickbats lot. ::) ::) ::)
I 'am quite willing to be proved wrong however. :y :y :y :y
...working to who's agenda I wonder Optio :-/ :-/
Working in a measured ......balanced......... and objective manner.......Zulu.......I hope :y :y :y
-
Optimist writes: "market forces capitalism takes us all to Utopia.....is laughable........it has clearly failed."
Why then, are the cleanest countries, environmentally-speaking, all capitalist?
Utopia......needs to be more than just clean nickbat......much more....... :) :) ;) ;)
::) ::)
-
Working in a measured ......balanced......... and objective manner.......Zulu.......I hope :y :y :y
....as do I O :-/ :-/
-
Apple, that darling company of the liberal elite, has relocated most of its manufacturing to China (oh, and Al Gore is a director). It has just resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because the latter has threatened legal action against the EPA which, in turn, has directed that CO2 is a pollutant.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/10/apple-loves-dirty-china-al-gores-apple-iphone-pursues-largest-consumer-market-in-world-also-worlds-biggest-polluter.html
But:
Xie Zhenhua, the lead Chinese climate negotiator, speaking at a news conference in New York last month, said the United Nations should not expect China to pay.
“Global warming is a result of CO2 from developed countries during their industrialization,” Mr. Xie said. “China is one of the countries that has borne the brunt of that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=3&hpw
So , here we have an Al Gore company, leaving the shores of the relatively clean US to manufacture in the now incredibly-rich China, which wants us to pay it loads of money. Meanwhile, the Chinese public protest against pollution...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/02/anti-pollution-riot-china
Wake up, Optimist! >:(
-
Apple, that darling company of the liberal elite, has relocated most of its manufacturing to China (oh, and Al Gore is a director). It has just resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because the latter has threatened legal action against the EPA which, in turn, has directed that CO2 is a pollutant.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/10/apple-loves-dirty-china-al-gores-apple-iphone-pursues-largest-consumer-market-in-world-also-worlds-biggest-polluter.html
But:
Xie Zhenhua, the lead Chinese climate negotiator, speaking at a news conference in New York last month, said the United Nations should not expect China to pay.
“Global warming is a result of CO2 from developed countries during their industrialization,” Mr. Xie said. “China is one of the countries that has borne the brunt of that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=3&hpw
So , here we have an Al Gore company, leaving the shores of the relatively clean US to manufacture in the now incredibly-rich China, which wants us to pay it loads of money. Meanwhile, the Chinese public protest against pollution...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/02/anti-pollution-riot-china
Wake up, Optimist! >:(
So angry ......yet again Nickbat.. ::) ::).......is it any wonder that Bannjaxx and I .....yank your chain(in jest :P :P).......every now and again.
You seem to take it very personally ......when another person takes a different view from your own entrenched position. ;) ;)
With regard to global warming.....could I be wrong?..........YES OF COURSE I COULD.......is it likely?. .....................Well...... with the PROFESSIONAL evidence available at the moment....I think not.
Is it just possible that you could be wrong Nickbat?.:P :P :P :P ;)
-
Not much new with all this really except perhaps the scale.
- people living the high life in London have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Tyneside (succesfully)
- People living in wealthy Britain have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Spain (successfully)
- I dare say those living in silicone valley in the West coast of the good old US of A paid to improve the lives of the dirt farmers in the Mid West.
And so the cycle continues. The one thing that doesn't change is the people paying STILL continue to have a very comfortable life. Think of it as helping out a less priviledged neighbour (remember when people did that?) rather than some sinister plot.
Varche
-
Not much new with all this really except perhaps the scale.
- people living the high life in London have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Tyneside (succesfully)
-And they shouldnt have been
- People living in wealthy Britain have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Spain (successfully)
-And they shouldnt have been.And it is a perfect demonstration of why we should tell the EU to poke it.
- I dare say those living in silicone valley in the West coast of the good old US of A paid to improve the lives of the dirt farmers in the Mid West. -No they havent,America isnt (or wasnt) a socialist country,they believe if you want it you work for it,like we used to.
And so the cycle continues. The one thing that doesn't change is the people paying STILL continue to have a very comfortable life. Think of it as helping out a less priviledged neighbour (remember when people did that?) rather than some sinister plot.
Varche
Neighbours being charitable to one another is a vastly different concept,to National government removing the wealth of its citizens from them and redistributing it in any way they see fit.Its morally wrong and it has been proved many times not to work.
-
Not much new with all this really except perhaps the scale.
- people living the high life in London have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Tyneside (succesfully)
- People living in wealthy Britain have been paying for years to improve the life of those in say Spain (successfully)
- I dare say those living in silicone valley in the West coast of the good old US of A paid to improve the lives of the dirt farmers in the Mid West.
And so the cycle continues. The one thing that doesn't change is the people paying STILL continue to have a very comfortable life. Think of it as helping out a less priviledged neighbour (remember when people did that?) rather than some sinister plot.
Varche
....I always enjoy your pieces V, but that analysis I cannot agree with as the proposals amount to much more than 'helping out' in a neighbourly fashion.
-
So angry ......yet again Nickbat.. ::) ::).......is it any wonder that Bannjaxx and I .....yank your chain(in jest :P :P).......every now and again.
You seem to take it very personally ......when another person takes a different view from your own entrenched position. ;) ;)
With regard to global warming.....could I be wrong?..........YES OF COURSE I COULD.......is it likely?. .....................Well...... with the PROFESSIONAL evidence available at the moment....I think not.
Is it just possible that you could be wrong Nickbat?.:P :P :P :P ;)
Yes, I am angry. And I will continue to be angry because I have two young children who deserve to live in a free world. There is nothing free about the world envisaged by the environmentalists. Why, they even suggest we should have carbon ration cards, so that every time we buy fuel or travel, it would be limited to our budget (and recorded by the government). :o
No, after all I have read, I do not believe in the climate scam. My doubts are reinforced by the refusal to hand over data for independent scrutiny, by the bizarre "loss" of data by the Hadley Centre, by the censoring of all sceptical comments by The Guardian and others. The list goes on.
Furthermore, even if global warming were true, the catastrophes suggested by the warmists are many decades off and only technological advances, paid for by the Western industrialised nations, will provide alternatives to fossil fuel use.
I am angry when it seems this country is so absorbed by Corrie and Boyzone that they fail to lift their eyes and notice the elephant in the room. >:(
-
Yes, I am angry. And I will continue to be angry because I have two young children who deserve to live in a free world. There is nothing free about the world envisaged by the environmentalists. Why, they even suggest we should have carbon ration cards, so that every time we buy fuel or travel, it would be limited to our budget (and recorded by the government). :o
No, after all I have read, I do not believe in the climate scam. My doubts are reinforced by the refusal to hand over data for independent scrutiny, by the bizarre "loss" of data by the Hadley Centre, by the censoring of all sceptical comments by The Guardian and others. The list goes on.
Furthermore, even if global warming were true, the catastrophes suggested by the warmists are many decades off and only technological advances, paid for by the Western industrialised nations, will provide alternatives to fossil fuel use.
I am angry when it seems this country is so absorbed by Corrie and Boyzone that they fail to lift their eyes and notice the elephant in the room. >:(
they even suggest we should have carbon ration cards, so that every time we buy fuel or travel, it would be limited to our budget (and recorded by the government)
...an example of what is to come if the outlandish proposals are not challenged.
I am angry when it seems this country is so absorbed by Corrie and Boyzone that they fail to lift their eyes and notice the elephant in the room.
....you are right to be as this is the most likely reason for these proposals to be allowed to edge their way up the legislative agenda without challenge past a populace, a surprising number of whom, seem blissfully unaware of the dreadful consequences
-
theres seems to be some confusion here Nickbat - i'm interested in how you go about your day to day life, trusting nothing that "they" tell you - if your watch says its 4pm how can you be sure that isn't just what they want you to think? you're displaying classic paranoid symptoms - let me ask you some multiple choice questions:
1) do you wear a tin foil hat incase the government try to steal your thoughts?
a) don't be ridiculous
b) i used to, but not anymore
c) who told you about the tin foil hat?
2) you're happy to pay tax to fund banker bonuses, yet you foam at the mouth at the very idea a smidgeon of tax goes to help poorer, developing countries. Why is this?
a) i am a banker
b) i'm livid at the thought of helping anyone other than myself
c) seriously, who told you about the tin foil hat?
3) I refuse to believe in man-made climate change - it's all one big con and I protest. Is this statement true or false?
a) True - I am a climate change protestor
b) False - I am not a climate change protestor
-
theres seems to be some confusion here Nickbat - i'm interested in how you go about your day to day life, trusting nothing that "they" tell you - if your watch says its 4pm how can you be sure that isn't just what they want you to think? you're displaying classic paranoid symptoms - let me ask you some multiple choice questions:
1) do you wear a tin foil hat incase the government try to steal your thoughts?
a) don't be ridiculous
b) i used to, but not anymore
c) who told you about the tin foil hat?
2) you're happy to pay tax to fund banker bonuses, yet you foam at the mouth at the very idea a smidgeon of tax goes to help poorer, developing countries. Why is this?
a) i am a banker
b) i'm livid at the thought of helping anyone other than myself
c) seriously, who told you about the tin foil hat?
3) I refuse to believe in man-made climate change - it's all one big con and I protest. Is this statement true or false?
a) True - I am a climate change protestor
b) False - I am not a climate change protestor
;D ;D ;D and so it begins, the typical age old trick of discrediting the contrary view, by any means possible - really bj!
-
BJ,
For the sake of maintaining civility on the forum, I shall ignore the comments you made about me being paranoid. ::) ::)
Perhaps you would care to comment on the following:
1. "Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939"
Source of PDF from which above was taken: House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.
See http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library?l=/european_council/_EN_1.0_&a=d
2. "The quasi-religious nature of AGW is evidenced by the rancour which is generated when people like me express scepticism about the theory. Scepticism is an essential part of science which has, until recently, been a “small-l liberal” pursuit in which the opinions of doubters were respected. Now we sceptics are called “deniers” and, by implication, lumped in with neo-Nazis who question the Holocaust. The accusation that we are somehow in the sway of the oil companies and similar big business interests is commonplace and indeed is the chief argument of non-scientist supporters of the AGW theory. This echoes the “work of the Devil” argument of fundamentalist Christians; it is a mental trick by which the faithful avoid facing the real issues."
– Scientist John Reid, PhD in Upper Atmospheric Physics and former employee of CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography (Australia), i.e. someone who knows about the science.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense
-
So angry ......yet again Nickbat.. ::) ::).......is it any wonder that Bannjaxx and I .....yank your chain(in jest :P :P).......every now and again.
You seem to take it very personally ......when another person takes a different view from your own entrenched position. ;) ;)
With regard to global warming.....could I be wrong?..........YES OF COURSE I COULD.......is it likely?. .....................Well...... with the PROFESSIONAL evidence available at the moment....I think not.
Is it just possible that you could be wrong Nickbat?.:P :P :P :P ;)
Yes, I am angry. And I will continue to be angry because I have two young children who deserve to live in a free world. There is nothing free about the world envisaged by the environmentalists. Why, they even suggest we should have carbon ration cards, so that every time we buy fuel or travel, it would be limited to our budget (and recorded by the government). :o
No, after all I have read, I do not believe in the climate scam. My doubts are reinforced by the refusal to hand over data for independent scrutiny, by the bizarre "loss" of data by the Hadley Centre, by the censoring of all sceptical comments by The Guardian and others. The list goes on.
Furthermore, even if global warming were true, the catastrophes suggested by the warmists are many decades off and only technological advances, paid for by the Western industrialised nations, will provide alternatives to fossil fuel use.
I am angry when it seems this country is so absorbed by Corrie and Boyzone that they fail to lift their eyes and notice the elephant in the room. >:(
I fully agree with both yourself ....and Zulu on this point. :y :y
During the era of the Moon landings 1969-72.....obese.....Trailer trash Americans would regularly contact the TV networks......and angrily ask why their favourite soap opera.....I Love Lucy...( with the excretable Lucille Ball >:( >:()....had been delayed by 30 minutes ......just because "Man".....had landed on another world :-/ :-/ :-/
Here in Britain ................more people will vote on "The X factor".....than at a general election......Very sad. :'( :'( :'( :'( :y
-
theres seems to be some confusion here Nickbat - i'm interested in how you go about your day to day life, trusting nothing that "they" tell you - if your watch says its 4pm how can you be sure that isn't just what they want you to think? you're displaying classic paranoid symptoms - let me ask you some multiple choice questions:
1) do you wear a tin foil hat incase the government try to steal your thoughts?
a) don't be ridiculous
b) i used to, but not anymore
c) who told you about the tin foil hat?
2) you're happy to pay tax to fund banker bonuses, yet you foam at the mouth at the very idea a smidgeon of tax goes to help poorer, developing countries. Why is this?
a) i am a banker
b) i'm livid at the thought of helping anyone other than myself
c) seriously, who told you about the tin foil hat?
3) I refuse to believe in man-made climate change - it's all one big con and I protest. Is this statement true or false?
a) True - I am a climate change protestor
b) False - I am not a climate change protestor
Are you teasing Mr Nickbat again Bannjaxx.......shame on you. ::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
-
theres seems to be some confusion here Nickbat - i'm interested in how you go about your day to day life, trusting nothing that "they" tell you - if your watch says its 4pm how can you be sure that isn't just what they want you to think? you're displaying classic paranoid symptoms - let me ask you some multiple choice questions:
1) do you wear a tin foil hat incase the government try to steal your thoughts?
a) don't be ridiculous
b) i used to, but not anymore
c) who told you about the tin foil hat?
2) you're happy to pay tax to fund banker bonuses, yet you foam at the mouth at the very idea a smidgeon of tax goes to help poorer, developing countries. Why is this?
a) i am a banker
b) i'm livid at the thought of helping anyone other than myself
c) seriously, who told you about the tin foil hat?
3) I refuse to believe in man-made climate change - it's all one big con and I protest. Is this statement true or false?
a) True - I am a climate change protestor
b) False - I am not a climate change protestor
Are you teasing Mr Nickbat again Bannjaxx.......shame on you. ::) ::) ::) ::) ;) ;)
...Very naughty indeed Optio when one considers this posting in his Super Dario thread ::) ::) ::)
Top bloke - can't help thinking that if he was English rather than Scottish he'd be a household name tho :(
.....Oh I say!!! :-? :-? :-? :-?
You'll be posting this next ::) ::) ::)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ5fLBEpKo8&feature=related[/media]
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
thats almost exactly what i think - mankind is completely incapable solving this issue - some brave souls rail against change, but really, why bother? you can have all the hurricanes, tsunamis, storms, floods and bush fires setting unprecedented records year on year and some loonies will claim it's all the plan of some invisible super-being, others that it's completely natural, some will argue that maybe we've got a hand in this and maybe...just maybe we should try to reduce our emissions - if they're wrong whats the worst that could happen? a few industries are a bit cleaner and more efficient? if they're right tho....we're completely stuffed.
then theres people like me who know we won't do a damn thing but love a good argument :y
the reason we'll fail - and we will fail - is precisely as Nickbat has demonstrated, people hate facing up to responsibility and latch onto whoever tells them its all a big lie - you'll never lose money betting that humans are greedy, self serving parasites - i include myself in this too :y
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
I give a f*ck about sex & i do regulary (not sure about the flying part though), but you're bang (no pun) on about the others ;D
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
thats almost exactly what i think - mankind is completely incapable solving this issue - some brave souls rail against change, but really, why bother? you can have all the hurricanes, tsunamis, storms, floods and bush fires setting unprecedented records year on year and some loonies will claim it's all the plan of some invisible super-being, others that it's completely natural, some will argue that maybe we've got a hand in this and maybe...just maybe we should try to reduce our emissions - if they're wrong whats the worst that could happen? a few industries are a bit cleaner and more efficient? if they're right tho....we're completely stuffed.
then theres people like me who know we won't do a damn thing but love a good argument :y
the reason we'll fail - and we will fail - is precisely as Nickbat has demonstrated, people hate facing up to responsibility and latch onto whoever tells them its all a big lie - you'll never lose money betting that humans are greedy, self serving parasites - i include myself in this too :y
Now you're being very objectionable. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
"The accelerating moral panic about alleged global warming and its projected catastrophic effects is a fundamentally religious phenomenon. Despite its pretensions, it is not primarily about science. Rather, it represents the emergence of a new religious movement (an NRM, or what used to be called a ‘cult’). This new form of eco-fundamentalism is characterized by a widely excessive faith in science, a hatred and despair at Humanity, an intolerance of opposition or even skepticism, and a near hysterical form of secular Apocalypticism."
Merv Bendle, Senior lecturer in History & Communications at James Cook University
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4195
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
thats almost exactly what i think - mankind is completely incapable solving this issue - some brave souls rail against change, but really, why bother? you can have all the hurricanes, tsunamis, storms, floods and bush fires setting unprecedented records year on year and some loonies will claim it's all the plan of some invisible super-being, others that it's completely natural, some will argue that maybe we've got a hand in this and maybe...just maybe we should try to reduce our emissions - if they're wrong whats the worst that could happen? a few industries are a bit cleaner and more efficient? if they're right tho....we're completely stuffed.
then theres people like me who know we won't do a damn thing but love a good argument :y
the reason we'll fail - and we will fail - is precisely as Nickbat has demonstrated, people hate facing up to responsibility and latch onto whoever tells them its all a big lie - you'll never lose money betting that humans are greedy, self serving parasites - i include myself in this too :y
......that's such a negative generalisation bj. :(
It seems to border on the voyeuristic tendency some people adopt when they take pleasure in denigrating the attempts made by some others in establishing the veracity - or otherwise - of material presented, the consequences of which, will quite possibly have a dramatic result in how each and everyone of us lives our lives from this point forward.
Furthermore it’s very unhelpful to suggest that this is a binary matter, it’s far from it – there’s plenty can be done in a constructive and responsible way to lighten our collective footprint. :y
I certainly don’t consider myself a greedy self-serving parasite. :o
-
Sex, Politics, Religion, and now Climate Change etc, etc. You can all argue the toss from now until doomsday and you wont change a bloody thing, because the majority of mankind dont give a flying f*ck about any of it, they are only interested in No. 1 and their immediate nearest & dearest. We are all just Pi**ing against the wind! :(
thats almost exactly what i think - mankind is completely incapable solving this issue - some brave souls rail against change, but really, why bother? you can have all the hurricanes, tsunamis, storms, floods and bush fires setting unprecedented records year on year and some loonies will claim it's all the plan of some invisible super-being, others that it's completely natural, some will argue that maybe we've got a hand in this and maybe...just maybe we should try to reduce our emissions - if they're wrong whats the worst that could happen? a few industries are a bit cleaner and more efficient? if they're right tho....we're completely stuffed.
then theres people like me who know we won't do a damn thing but love a good argument :y
the reason we'll fail - and we will fail - is precisely as Nickbat has demonstrated, people hate facing up to responsibility and latch onto whoever tells them its all a big lie - you'll never lose money betting that humans are greedy, self serving parasites - i include myself in this too :y
......that's such a negative generalisation bj. :(
It seems to border on the voyeuristic tendency some people adopt when they take pleasure in denigrating the attempts made by some others in establishing the veracity - or otherwise - of material presented, the consequences of which, will quite possibly have a dramatic result in how each and everyone of us lives our lives from this point forward.
Furthermore it’s very unhelpful to suggest that this is a binary matter, it’s far from it – there’s plenty can be done in a constructive and responsible way to lighten our collective footprint. :y
I certainly don’t consider myself a greedy self-serving parasite. :o
the ones who pull the strings are zulu - thats ultimately what determines our fate, a cabal of powerful nations making decisions on the planet based on being re-elected by a largely gullible and apathetic populous. if it starts hitting the sheep in the pocket they'll feel it at the ballot box, ergo we, as a race of beings will do nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss to save ourselves :y
and i'm the last person to swallow any line given by the government, my default position is cynic ;D
in this whole debate tho, at first, politicians didn't want to know - the ravings of a few mad greenies, nothing to worry about....time passed and slowly scientific evidence became available, studies were done (at first suppressed by industry and governments) when the tide turned and most people think - hang on - maybe there is something to this...thats when politicians began to clamber over each other to jump on the green bandwagon. now, in their quest to retain power, they've stumbled on a truth. when the general populous discovers how much repairing the damage (actually not even that, simply slowing down the rate) will cost and don't have the stomach for it, then our great leaders will ditch it as its no longer the popular line. ;)
-
[quote author=393A3535313A23235B0
the ones who pull the strings are zulu - thats ultimately what determines our fate, a cabal of powerful nations making decisions on the planet based on being re-elected by a largely gullible and apathetic populous. if it starts hitting the sheep in the pocket they'll feel it at the ballot box, ergo we, as a race of beings will do nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss to save ourselves :y
and i'm the last person to swallow any line given by the government, my default position is cynic ;D
in this whole debate tho, at first, politicians didn't want to know - the ravings of a few mad greenies, nothing to worry about....time passed and slowly scientific evidence became available, studies were done (at first suppressed by industry and governments) when the tide turned and most people think - hang on - maybe there is something to this...thats when politicians began to clamber over each other to jump on the green bandwagon. now, in their quest to retain power, they've stumbled on a truth. when the general populous discovers how much repairing the damage (actually not even that, simply slowing down the rate) will cost and don't have the stomach for it, then our great leaders will ditch it as its no longer the popular line. ;)[/quote]
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
the ones who pull the strings are zulu - thats ultimately what determines our fate, a cabal of powerful nations making decisions on the planet based on being re-elected by a largely gullible and apathetic populous. if it starts hitting the sheep in the pocket they'll feel it at the ballot box, ergo we, as a race of beings will do nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss to save ourselves :y
and i'm the last person to swallow any line given by the government, my default position is cynic ;D
in this whole debate tho, at first, politicians didn't want to know - the ravings of a few mad greenies, nothing to worry about....time passed and slowly scientific evidence became available, studies were done (at first suppressed by industry and governments) when the tide turned and most people think - hang on - maybe there is something to this...thats when politicians began to clamber over each other to jump on the green bandwagon. now, in their quest to retain power, they've stumbled on a truth. when the general populous discovers how much repairing the damage (actually not even that, simply slowing down the rate) will cost and don't have the stomach for it, then our great leaders will ditch it as its no longer the popular line. ;)
the ones who pull the strings are zulu - thats ultimately what determines our fate, a cabal of powerful nations making decisions on the planet based on being re-elected by a largely gullible and apathetic populous.
...and that's precisely why the alternative case must be argued with clarity and vigour as the ones pulling the strings at the moment seem to recognize an opportunity to tighten those strings on the back of this ‘crisis’ concerning the environment.
as a race of beings will do nothing, zip, nada, bupkiss to save ourselves.
...I try to limit my impact as much as possible be being as sensible as I can with energy use across the board, and I'm sure that many do likewise - it isn't difficult to do and on a cumulative basis it must contribute to some degree, I would have thought.
in their quest to retain power, they've stumbled on a truth. when the general populous discovers how much repairing the damage (actually not even that, simply slowing down the rate) will cost and don't have the stomach for it, then our great leaders will ditch it as its no longer the popular line
....I feel the problem here is that measures to control emissions and energy use have already been formulated by groups unelected by the citizens of this country, so the practical and financial impact of these measures will have little bearing on the standing of the ruling administration.
We have signed away - or will do shortly - much of our ability to have control over our independent decision making process concerning matters such as these, so in reality we as a nation - subsumed by Brussels - will have to do what we're told in relation to energy and other policies.
The government in power therefore can absolve their responsibility by referring to European legislation as being the motivator for issues that cause dissatisfaction with the voters. Witness the surrender to such legislation governing the disposal of waste.
-
On a lighter note........... ;) ::) :D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-to-be-just-lovely-200910162145/
-
On a lighter note........... ;) ::) :D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-to-be-just-lovely-200910162145/
;D ;D ;D nice one albs :y
-
On a lighter note........... ;) ::) :D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-to-be-just-lovely-200910162145/
Tears rolling down my cheeks ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :y
-
I,m not surprised that the Daily Mash is your kind of paper Steve. :y ::) ;D
Dont know if anyone heard Gormless Browns speech today,but rest assured that Nickbat will be apoplectic with rage when he next logs on,and rightly so imo. :y
-
I,m not surprised that the Daily Mash is your kind of paper Steve. :y ::) ;D
Dont know if anyone heard Gormless Browns speech today,but rest assured that Nickbat will be apoplectic with rage when he next logs on,and rightly so imo. :y
;D Thanks, Albs. ;)
Actually, I'd already seen this last night. Proof, if proof were needed, that Crash Gordon's as mad as a hatter. >:( >:(
-
The Devil's Kitchen sums it up nicely:
"The simple fact is that we do not have any kind of accurate temperature record for this planet—all we have are discredited proxies, badly-stitched snippets and anecdotal histories.
We certainly do not have enough data to justify beggaring the human population of this planet in the way in which our idiot politicians are suggesting.
Once again, Brown is attempting to secure some kind of legacy for himself—and to bind future governments (surely the one thing that is considered to be absolutely unconstitutional in this country).
The truth is that this sad attempt will go the same way as his "abolition" of boom and bust—it will leave the people of this country poor and oppressed, their property confiscated and their liberties ripped from them.
Except that this climate change issue will be worse, because Brown and his fellow big state socialist buddies will impoverish not just the people of this nation but of the whole world—and through this they will be responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of the world's poorest and most defenseless people."
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/10/increasing-desperation.html
>:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
-
gordon brown = king kanute in a suit :D,,,,,,,,his speech was the sign of a person believing his own lies & his capabilities [or lack of],,,the blokes an idiot >:( >:(
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
The problem is all inside your head", Nick said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
We don't need fifty days to save your planet
He said it's really not my habit to intrude ::)
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued ;)
But I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty days to save your planet
Fifty days to leave your planet
You just slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Ooo slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
He said it grieves me so to see you believe these lies
I wish there was something I could do to make you realise
I said I appreciate that and would you please explain
About the fifty days
He said why don't we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you'll begin to see the light ;D
And then he hit me and I realized he probably was right
We don't need fifty days to save the planet
Fifty days to save your planet
You just slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
and get yourself free
Slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
-
;D ;D splendid effort bj 8-) :y :y
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
How about "8 months to get this useless breakwit out of No. 10"? ;)
Ok. I was never a musician so someone else can make it rhyme. ;)
Kevin
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
How about "8 months to get this useless breakwit out of No. 10"? ;)
Ok. I was never a musician so someone else can make it rhyme. ;)
Kevin
...welcome though that would be Kevin his legacy will effect each and everyone of us - in the negative sense - for a long time to come >:(
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
How about "8 months to get this useless breakwit out of No. 10"? ;)
Ok. I was never a musician so someone else can make it rhyme. ;)
Kevin
when, in 8 months time we get gordon out the door,
we'll get another breakwit in who'll tax the poor
he'll look after his posh chums in the city
its the way its always been in this ditty ;D
i'm on fire folks - i'm here all week ;D
-
when, in 8 months time we get gordon out the door,
we'll get another breakwit in who'll tax the poor
he'll look after his posh chums in the city
its the way its always been in this ditty ;D
i'm on fire folks - i'm here all week ;D
;D ;D not bad 8-) :y :y
-
;D ;D splendid effort bj 8-) :y :y
zulu - you startled me with your new avatar there - i thought it was harriet harman for a second :y
-
I presume you didnt believe him yesterday then Nick when he told us we have 50 days to save the planet ? ::) :D ;DThey could get Paul Simon to re-write one of his old songs,as a climate change anthem. ;D ;D....50 ways to leave your lover/50 days to save the planet.Any clever lyricists on here want to amuse us all with a new version ?
The problem is all inside your head", Nick said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
We don't need fifty days to save your planet
He said it's really not my habit to intrude ::)
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued ;)
But I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty days to save your planet
Fifty days to leave your planet
You just slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Ooo slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
He said it grieves me so to see you believe these lies
I wish there was something I could do to make you realise
I said I appreciate that and would you please explain
About the fifty days
He said why don't we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you'll begin to see the light ;D
And then he hit me and I realized he probably was right
We don't need fifty days to save the planet
Fifty days to save your planet
You just slip out the mig, Stig
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
and get yourself free
Slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
BRILLIANT. :y :y :y ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D splendid effort bj 8-) :y :y
zulu - you startled me with your new avatar there - i thought it was harriet harman for a second :y
;D ;D This gal would have Ms Harperson for a very light lunch 8-) ;) ;)
-
Is she the ex euro official who has turned UKIP ? :-/
-
;D ;D splendid effort bj 8-) :y :y
zulu - you startled me with your new avatar there - i thought it was harriet harman for a second :y
;D ;D This gal would have Ms Harperson for a very light lunch 8-) ;) ;)
sorry - don't know who it is, but she has a certain something 8-)
-
The half opened mouth perchance ? ::) ;)
-
The half opened mouth perchance ? ::) ;)
that and the uniform and authority :y ;D ;)
-
Perv. :D ;D ;D ;D
-
Perv. :D ;D ;D ;D
::)
-
On a lighter note........... ;) ::) :D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-to-be-just-lovely-200910162145/
Good one Albs :y Thanks for bringing the thread 'back down to earth' mate :y :y
-
On a lighter note........... ;) ::) :D
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-to-be-just-lovely-200910162145/
Good one Albs :y Thanks for bringing the thread 'back down to earth' mate :y :y
:-? :-? where did you think the thread was heading Phil?
-
Back to the thread...
Cabinet ministers in the Maldives held an underwater meeting Saturday to draw attention to the threat global warming poses to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/17/maldives-climate-change.html
Open letter to the President of The Maldives from Nils-Axel Morner:
"You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements, Accordingly it is incorrect.
Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest to its intended message.
In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast."
Nils-Axel Mörner?
Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005)
President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)
Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on)
Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003)
Awarded the Golden Condrite of Merit from Algarve University (2008) “for his irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OpenLetter.doc.pdf
As I said earlier, wake up! ;)
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
I hope he's not holding his breath for any sensible response from the elite of that fine establishment ::) ::)
-
I now have more than one reason to vote UKIP. :y
-
and i have one more reason not to ;D
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
-
YES, I AM SHOUTING. >:(
I can't contain myself anymore. I really enjoy reading all the little titbits on here, everything from jokes about caravans to discussions about what we're havng for tea. I also appreciate that many of you have no interest in politics. But it's time to wake up.
What if I told you that in Copenhagen in December (if things go the way they're intended), Brown, Obama and the others will sign a treaty which will effectively give away our wealth to the developing world, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela – indeed, anywhere you care to name, as long as it's not a western industrialised country. Not only will we sign away huge amounts of our wealth, but we will also sink our economies with crippling emission reduction schemes.
This is not a joke, guys. You can read a link here and also link to the UN's proposed treaty.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/all-governments-are-created-equal/
Viscount Monkton of Brenchley (who no doubt Bannjaax will try to rubbish) has even suggested that US sovereignty will be ceded if the US signs up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Remember this is designed to take place in December in Copenhagen. Don't say I didn't warn you.
>:( >:( >:(
So....... what is so very wrong with the wealthy countries of the world helping the less fortunate?.
Not everything in the world needs to be about profit. :y :y :y
As for the emissions reduction scheme......it is almost inevitable that it will come to this in the near future. :) :) :) ;)
The people in this wealth country have to pay for it.
given that were already taxed to death i am struggling to find a reason to give my money away to someone i dont know or even care about,
more so when many of us are worried how we will pay our mortgage when the intrest rates go through the roof as they will soon
I am of the mindset dont wave your arms about when your hanging by your fingernails Lets get out our own mess before we start trying to bail out everyone else with their problems
Doug
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
Ah yes...........good old Godfrey Bloom.....an insignificant MEP.................from the "Little Englander "party.......
Hardly the definitive authority on global warming Nickbat..... ::) ::) ::) :) ;)
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
And I am pretty sure I know why ;D ;D
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
And I am pretty sure I know why ;D ;D
....I couldn't possibly comment Martin ::) ::) ;D ;D :y
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
Nor have I. ;)
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
Quite frankly Zulu..............yes it would. ;)
I have never slavishly followed one political party .
I'am actually apolitical :y :y....as it seems you are :y :y
When the general election comes ........I will simply shop around for the "best deal.".....in much the same way I would.....if I were to buy a washing machine.....television ......microwave......new car ....etc.... etc
Ask most people WHY they vote for political party "X".......and they will almost invariably reply............because my parents .....and grandparents......and great grandparents......always voted for party "X"....hardly enlightened thinking. :'( :'( ;)
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
Quite frankly Zulu..............yes it would. ;)
I have never slavishly followed one political party .
I'am actually apolitical :y :y....as it seems you are :y :y
When the general election comes ........I will simply shop around for the "best deal.".....in much the same way I would.....if I were to buy a washing machine.....television ......microwave......new car ....etc.... etc
Ask most people WHY they vote for political party "X".......and they will almost invariably reply............because my parents .....and grandparents......and great grandparents......always voted for party "X"....hardly enlightened thinking. :'( :'( ;)
...far be it for me to give you another shock Opti but I completly agree with you on this. Those seeking political office should be examined on the issues not on pedigree, antecedents or dogma :y :y
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
Ah yes...........good old Godfrey Bloom.....an insignificant MEP.................from the "Little Englander "party.......
Hardly the definitive authority on global warming Nickbat..... ::) ::) ::) :) ;)
1. Doesn't make any difference to you whether I post authoritative quotes from climate scientists. You still won't take any notice. ;)
2. Name one MEP that IS significant. ;)
3. You may describe UKIP as a "Little Englander" party, but I would prefer a Little England to a Federal EU...or a New World Order (UN), both of which are a considerable step away from democracy. :(
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
Ah yes...........good old Godfrey Bloom.....an insignificant MEP.................from the "Little Englander "party.......
Hardly the definitive authority on global warming Nickbat..... ::) ::) ::) :) ;)
1. Doesn't make any difference to you whether I post authoritative quotes from climate scientists. You still won't take any notice. ;)
2. Name one MEP that IS significant. ;)
3. You may describe UKIP as a "Little Englander" party, but I would prefer a Little England to a Federal EU...or a New World Order (UN), both of which are a considerable step away from democracy. :(
.................my mind is always open to reasoned persuasion ...Nickbat.... :) :) ;) ;)
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOygATEabIk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
:y :y
Ah yes...........good old Godfrey Bloom.....an insignificant MEP.................from the "Little Englander "party.......
Hardly the definitive authority on global warming Nickbat..... ::) ::) ::) :) ;)
1. Doesn't make any difference to you whether I post authoritative quotes from climate scientists. You still won't take any notice. ;)
2. Name one MEP that IS significant. ;)
3. You may describe UKIP as a "Little Englander" party, but I would prefer a Little England to a Federal EU...or a New World Order (UN), both of which are a considerable step away from democracy. :(
.................my mind is always open to reasoned persuasion ...Nickbat.... :) :) ;) ;)
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
-
And I think you probably dont give a monkeys about any of it Banjaxx,you just like to take the opposing view to have a good argument to pass the time. ;)
-
And I think you probably dont give a monkeys about any of it Banjaxx,you just like to take the opposing view to have a good argument to pass the time. ;)
:o :o :o
how very dare you ::)
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
it was built to cope with continuing and projected sea level rises to the middle of this century but whatever works for you, if sea levels were falling and therefore damaging storm surges were less frequent the barrier wouldn't have been commissioned. 8-)
theres no arguing with you is there? they built the Thames Barrier because the south of Britain is sinking? ;D you know the rate its sinking at? you're worried about 1 or 2mm a year but not rising sea levels - where do you get this stuff?
-
I'm pleased to be apolitical ;D ;D :y
........... apolitical Tory voter perhaps .......Zulu.... ;D ;)
...would it surprise you to learn Opti, that I've never voted Tory? ;) ;)
Quite frankly Zulu..............yes it would. ;)
I have never slavishly followed one political party .
I'am actually apolitical :y :y....as it seems you are :y :y
When the general election comes ........I will simply shop around for the "best deal.".....in much the same way I would.....if I were to buy a washing machine.....television ......microwave......new car ....etc.... etc
Ask most people WHY they vote for political party "X".......and they will almost invariably reply............because my parents .....and grandparents......and great grandparents......always voted for party "X"....hardly enlightened thinking. :'( :'( ;)
I know the of area Z77 comes from - that is why I am not surprised ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
it was built to cope with continuing and projected sea level rises to the middle of this century but whatever works for you, if sea levels were falling and therefore damaging storm surges were less frequent the barrier wouldn't have been commissioned. 8-)
theres no arguing with you is there? they built the Thames Barrier because the south of Britain is sinking? ;D you know the rate its sinking at? you're worried about 1 or 2mm a year but not rising sea levels - where do you get this stuff?
"Britain is still recovering from a legacy of the last ice age, when huge sheets of ice weighed heavily on Scotland and the north of England, forcing them down into the sea. Even though the ice is long gone, those regions are still springing back up out of the sea, a process known as "isostatic rebound". But what's good news for the north is bad news for the south. Like a see-saw, as the north rises up, the south is slowly sinking."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/12/science.research2
"In 1965 government plans were made to build a barrier following many flooding incidents in London’s history, the most recent and significant having been in 1953, when several dozen people were drowned and thousands of hectares of farmland were flooded with salt water in the area around the Thames estuary. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781539517/thames_flood_barrier.html
1965 pre-dated the global warming scare.
You REALLY don't know much, do you? >:(
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
it was built to cope with continuing and projected sea level rises to the middle of this century but whatever works for you, if sea levels were falling and therefore damaging storm surges were less frequent the barrier wouldn't have been commissioned. 8-)
theres no arguing with you is there? they built the Thames Barrier because the south of Britain is sinking? ;D you know the rate its sinking at? you're worried about 1 or 2mm a year but not rising sea levels - where do you get this stuff?
"Britain is still recovering from a legacy of the last ice age, when huge sheets of ice weighed heavily on Scotland and the north of England, forcing them down into the sea. Even though the ice is long gone, those regions are still springing back up out of the sea, a process known as "isostatic rebound". But what's good news for the north is bad news for the south. Like a see-saw, as the north rises up, the south is slowly sinking."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/12/science.research2
"In 1965 government plans were made to build a barrier following many flooding incidents in London’s history, the most recent and significant having been in 1953, when several dozen people were drowned and thousands of hectares of farmland were flooded with salt water in the area around the Thames estuary. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781539517/thames_flood_barrier.html
1965 pre-dated the global warming scare.
You REALLY don't know much, do you? >:(
rising sea levels have been known about since we first started recording them with tide gauges back in the 1700's and still is common use today - i'll refrain from any cheapshots :y
you can look at levels recorded for the last 300yrs, thats where you get the data on rising sea levels - before we even go into the whys and wherefores ::)
the trouble is Nickbat, you get one idea in your head and you'll pull various strands together to make it fit - sometimes you should take a breath, step back and look again - sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong :o
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
it was built to cope with continuing and projected sea level rises to the middle of this century but whatever works for you, if sea levels were falling and therefore damaging storm surges were less frequent the barrier wouldn't have been commissioned. 8-)
theres no arguing with you is there? they built the Thames Barrier because the south of Britain is sinking? ;D you know the rate its sinking at? you're worried about 1 or 2mm a year but not rising sea levels - where do you get this stuff?
"Britain is still recovering from a legacy of the last ice age, when huge sheets of ice weighed heavily on Scotland and the north of England, forcing them down into the sea. Even though the ice is long gone, those regions are still springing back up out of the sea, a process known as "isostatic rebound". But what's good news for the north is bad news for the south. Like a see-saw, as the north rises up, the south is slowly sinking."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/12/science.research2
"In 1965 government plans were made to build a barrier following many flooding incidents in London’s history, the most recent and significant having been in 1953, when several dozen people were drowned and thousands of hectares of farmland were flooded with salt water in the area around the Thames estuary. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781539517/thames_flood_barrier.html
1965 pre-dated the global warming scare.
You REALLY don't know much, do you? >:(
rising sea levels have been known about since we first started recording them with tide gauges back in the 1700's and still is common use today - i'll refrain from any cheapshots :y
you can look at levels recorded for the last 300yrs, thats where you get the data on rising sea levels - before we even go into the whys and wherefores ::)
the trouble is Nickbat, you get one idea in your head and you'll pull various strands together to make it fit - sometimes you should take a breath, step back and look again - sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong :o
You're unbelievable at times. You make a comment about the Thames Barrier, I tell you that the SE is sinking and that the Barrier was conceived before the current warming scare and you fire back with something about 300-year sea levels and telling me I'm wrong. Wrong about what?
I haven't a clue what you're on about. :-? :-?
-
Nickbat, whilst I enjoy a laugh as much as the next man, I'm beginning to think you really believe all this climate change scepticism :-? :-?
you'll be buying a house in a flood plain next - should be alright what with the Thames Barrier........hang on a second how much did that cost and we don't even need it!!!!! this is outrageous!!! ;D ;D
The Barrier was built due because the South East is slowly sinking while the North is rising...all due to isostatic rebound. Additionally, there have been in the past, occasional storm surges caused by deep cyclones tracking (unpredictably) across the Netherlands, sometimes concurrent with spring tides, hence the tragedy at Sea Palling on 31 January 1953.
You really don't know much about this subject, do you?
::) ::)
it was built to cope with continuing and projected sea level rises to the middle of this century but whatever works for you, if sea levels were falling and therefore damaging storm surges were less frequent the barrier wouldn't have been commissioned. 8-)
theres no arguing with you is there? they built the Thames Barrier because the south of Britain is sinking? ;D you know the rate its sinking at? you're worried about 1 or 2mm a year but not rising sea levels - where do you get this stuff?
"Britain is still recovering from a legacy of the last ice age, when huge sheets of ice weighed heavily on Scotland and the north of England, forcing them down into the sea. Even though the ice is long gone, those regions are still springing back up out of the sea, a process known as "isostatic rebound". But what's good news for the north is bad news for the south. Like a see-saw, as the north rises up, the south is slowly sinking."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/12/science.research2
"In 1965 government plans were made to build a barrier following many flooding incidents in London’s history, the most recent and significant having been in 1953, when several dozen people were drowned and thousands of hectares of farmland were flooded with salt water in the area around the Thames estuary. "
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781539517/thames_flood_barrier.html
1965 pre-dated the global warming scare.
You REALLY don't know much, do you? >:(
rising sea levels have been known about since we first started recording them with tide gauges back in the 1700's and still is common use today - i'll refrain from any cheapshots :y
you can look at levels recorded for the last 300yrs, thats where you get the data on rising sea levels - before we even go into the whys and wherefores ::)
the trouble is Nickbat, you get one idea in your head and you'll pull various strands together to make it fit - sometimes you should take a breath, step back and look again - sometimes you're right sometimes you're wrong :o
You're unbelievable at times. You make a comment about the Thames Barrier, I tell you that the SE is sinking and that the Barrier was conceived before the current warming scare and you fire back with something about 300-year sea levels and telling me I'm wrong. Wrong about what?
I haven't a clue what you're on about. :-? :-?
errr....that sea levels have been recorded to be rising for 300years maybe? and 1 or 2mm of sinkage a year really wasn't why they spent millions on the barrier? maybe? :y
-
errr....that sea levels have been recorded to be rising for 300years maybe? and 1 or 2mm of sinkage a year really wasn't why they spent millions on the barrier? maybe? :y
They spent millions on the barrier because of the history of London flooding due to storm surges. The sinking of the SE meant that this situation would only get worse. It was not until the 1960s that the technology was reached whereby such a barrier could be built.
-
errr....that sea levels have been recorded to be rising for 300years maybe? and 1 or 2mm of sinkage a year really wasn't why they spent millions on the barrier? maybe? :y
They spent millions on the barrier because of the history of London flooding due to storm surges. The sinking of the SE meant that this situation would only get worse. It was not until the 1960s that the technology was reached whereby such a barrier could be built.
and storm surges are caused by cyclones forming over open seas which, have been increasing in intensity and number due to, ahem, global warming - something that was fully established well before the Thames Barrier was built.
so when does Londinium finally disappear under the waves? i can wait ;D
-
If Londinium dissappeared under the waves where would the rest of the UK get its money from? ;) ::)
-
If Londinium dissappeared under the waves where would the rest of the UK get its money from? ;) ::)
Caledonian - in the poetic sense - oil ::) ::) :-/
-
Cant be much left I wouldnt have thought.Didnt Banjaxx say the world would run out of oil by next week or something similar. :D ;D
-
errr....that sea levels have been recorded to be rising for 300years maybe? and 1 or 2mm of sinkage a year really wasn't why they spent millions on the barrier? maybe? :y
They spent millions on the barrier because of the history of London flooding due to storm surges. The sinking of the SE meant that this situation would only get worse. It was not until the 1960s that the technology was reached whereby such a barrier could be built.
and storm surges are caused by cyclones forming over open seas which, have been increasing in intensity and number due to, ahem, global warming - something that was fully established well before the Thames Barrier was built.
so when does Londinium finally disappear under the waves? i can wait ;D
Wrong again, BJ. Are you going for some kind of record? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Look at the chart!!!! Cyclones have NOT been increasing due to global warming at all. I thought everyone knew that. ::) ::) ;)
-
There are none so blind as those who dont want to see Nickbat. ;)
-
Latest insanity. ::) ::)
"Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living."
When will this madness stop? >:(
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog
-
They will soon be telling us to eat our own relatives,less people less emissions. ;) ::) ::)
Nutters. >:(
-
They will soon be telling us to eat our own relatives,less people less emissions. ;) ::) ::)
Nutters. >:(
:y ;D
I can see it now.
"UN suggests cannibalism as our only hope."
http://www.suckermeinontheclimatescam.com
;) ;D ;D ;D
-
They will soon be telling us to eat our own relatives,less people less emissions. ;) ::) ::)
Nutters. >:(
:y ;D
I can see it now.
"UN suggests cannibalism as our only hope."
http://www.suckermeinontheclimatescam.com
;) ;D ;D ;D
Be quiet ffs,they might hear you.It will be policy by xmas. :y ::) ;D
-
There are none so blind as those who dont want to see Nickbat. ;)
who said that? ;D
-
There are none so blind as those who dont want to see Nickbat. ;)
who said that? ;D
;D ;D ;D very good bj 8-) 8-) :y
-
There are none so blind as those who dont want to see Nickbat. ;)
who said that? ;D
;D ;D ;D very good bj 8-) 8-) :y
morning zulu - just enjoying the cut and paste thrust of nicks arguments :y