Sweep Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 and the cast of 'Monkey'. I used to love that as a kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andydee Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I used to love that as a kid used to love it as a non-kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgoefc Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I don't read The Guardian, you might as well be reading The Gay Times or The Morning Star... I might have accidentally clicked on a Guardian link and inadvertantly fed myself their propaganda. so youri.... what do you read? As a middle of the road self thinker i gave up on all murdoch shit and DT which left me with the G as they don't charge for on line. I enjoy the fencing with the earth savers on the forums and comments. So what is your read?!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 The Dandy. Nah, obviously I'll read links folk post, regardless of paper, I'll pick up a Metro at the train station (utter shite) and read the Bolton News online, mainly to see if I know any of the miscreants being reported on. I'm a firm believer in avoiding the news where possible - it's all reactive bollocks, the more folk click the more they report on it, it's akin to a soap opera with storylines that are hit or miss, they'll run with the story that 'hits'. Same goes for TV news, I remember being in bed with man 'flu one year and channel flicking (when I had a chavtastic telly in the bedroom) - main story on Al Jazeera was some car bomb going off in Baghdad, fifty killed, the main story on the BBC? George Michael had got caned again and crashed his car into a HappySnaps shop. It's all bollocks, if it's owt important I'll find out about it down the line, not worth releasing cortisol over in the present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 We could use a timescale of say 1000000 years and then consider which ice age it is we are exiting if it helps. The argument is that man made CO2 is causing the rise in global temperatures so plotting the graph from the start of the IndustrIal Revolution makes sense. (FAO new posters this is the kind of fun we get up to on here on a Friday night). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (FAO new posters this is the kind of fun we get up to on here on a Friday night). I'm sat in my lounge wear eating a bag of mini eggs,drinking a cup of tea waiting in sheer anticipation of the next post. Rock on Tommy. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter only1swanny Posted March 20, 2015 Site Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2015 Policies will go out of the window anyway when assistants start adding 200% to every bill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffs Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 The argument is that man made CO2 is causing the rise in global temperatures so plotting the graph from the start of the IndustrIal Revolution makes sense. (FAO new posters this is the kind of fun we get up to on here on a Friday night). Possibly. There are cleverer men than me believe they can prove it. Or we could say that super accurate temperature records from before the industrial revolution and the development of most things meaningful and accurate (apart from say mathematics and central heating) were kept by people living in straw huts and recorded by throwing sticks into the wind or measuring the amount of hay in horseshit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breightmet Boy Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I'm sat in my lounge wear eating a bag of mini eggs,drinking a cup of tea waiting in sheer anticipation of the next post. Rock on Tommy. :-) Well here's one for you after being terrorised by them in the past, and all because David had his ham swiped from his butty http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Prime-Minister-holds-malice-seagulls-despite-ham/story-26201933-detail/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Or we could say that super accurate temperature records from before the industrial revolution and the development of most things meaningful and accurate (apart from say mathematics and central heating) were kept by people living in straw huts and recorded by throwing sticks into the wind or measuring the amount of hay in horseshit? The thing is with science is that everything has to be demonstrable and provable, they wouldn't use data recorded by the equivalent of sticking your elbow in the baby's bathwater. Whilst I think that our energy bills are too high because of the hefty green tariffs levied (have a chat to someone who jumped on the solar panel bandwagon early enough to see what they get paid) we should try to reduce our carbon emissions. If the scientists are right, and the majority agree on climate change, then the climate is a big one to screw up and for future generations to pick up the tab for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 The thing is with science is that everything has to be demonstrable and provable, they wouldn't use data recorded by the equivalent of sticking your elbow in the baby's bathwater. That is exactly what the thing is with science and is what explains why climate science is such crap. The data is much worse than sticking your elbow in the bath for every year prior to satellite records beginning in the 70s. There is no data to prove the theory that the climate is a in a bad way and it has been caused by us. Manmade global warming is not demonstrable or provable. All there are are some computer programmes which would tell you the world is warming due to CO2 even if you fed them the fucking phone book. And they have never ever been within a billion years of being right. we should try to reduce our carbon emissions. If the scientists are right, and the majority agree on climate change, then the climate is a big one to screw up and for future generations to pick up the tab for. The scientists agree on barely anything once you scratch the surface. I might agree that we should try and reduce our emissions if it wouldn't ruin our economies and ruin any hopes the third world might have of catching the rest of us up. As I type, wind is providing 1.1% of the UK's energy needs. Reducing emissions just in case it helps the climate is like having your bollocks removed on your 21st birthday in case you get cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I'd say It's more like having your bollocks removed on your 21st birthday when around 97% of suitably qualified Dr's agree that you are going to develop testicular cancer if you leave them on. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Is your crowd still going with the 97% crap? There was a high profile article as recently as yesterday explaining - again - what horseshit it is. Which you'd know if your side had any interest in opposing views. If 97% of experts agreed cancer was a certainty then chop away. But if all they had was a theory and a load of computer models which would tell you the moon was made of green cheese if you wanted them to - and still had never been right once - I'd keep hold thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Please send a link to that Maggie, will be interested to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 www.thegwpf.com/richard-tol-global-warming-consensus-claim-doesnt-stand-up Originally in The Australian newspaper but that's paywalled so the Global Warming Policy Foundation reproduced it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It's actually from an op ed piece by Richard Tol that was published in the Guardian in 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming He gets quite a lot wrong from making some pretty poor assumptions. The rebuttal can be found here. http://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 It's actually from an op ed piece by Richard Tol that was published in the Guardian in 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming He gets quite a lot wrong from making some pretty poor assumptions. The rebuttal can be found here. http://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html Sigh. No it's not. It is a day old. Read it. Though it is about the third or fourth time that Tol has had to show how pathetic the 'study' which led to the 97% consensus claim is. And he does so with plain English, not deliberately obfuscating diagrams and graphs and jargon as in your second link. Tol, by the way, believes man is causing climate change. He's on your side. But he has become a pariah because he dares point out bullshit studies created by other believers. Not that consensus, even if it did exist, is relevant. Science does not work by consensus. Either there is evidence (and predictive computer models are not evidence) or there is not. There is not. It warmed a bit for about fifty years. Now we are nearly twenty years into a flat-line which no scientist and no computer saw coming even though we shovel more and more CO2 up there. Not surprising as we know fuck all about any of it and a bit of humility, rather than telling everyone there is a consensus and it's settled, wouldn't go amiss. But the more you go on about consensus as if it did exist or were relevant the more obvious it becomes that you haven't got anything substantial to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgoefc Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Ah scientific consensus due to trial by association! That is what we have just covered in Biochemistry with regard to the 30 year old myth that eating fat from animal or dairy sources was bad for you. Of course obtaining over 50% of your average calorie intake from fat is not a good idea, but now the recommendation is 30 to 35% of daily calorie intake should be from fat. Did science have any hard evidence to blame dietary intake of fat? Erm no but they saw it in the diet and cried wolf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted March 25, 2015 Site Supporter Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Another one is the government scientists realising that it is sugar that is bad for you. Even the natural unrefined sugars found in fruit. The government told us years ago to eat lots of fruit and veg every day. What they should have said was eat lots of veg but only one piece of fruit. Problem is, the fruit growers association would be pissed offoff of they corrected their earlier advice Edited March 25, 2015 by MickyD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Another one is the government scientists realising that it is sugar that is bad for you. Even the natural unrefined sugars found in fruit. The government told us years ago to eat lots of fruit and veg every day. What they should have said was eat lots of veg but only one piece of fruit. Problem is, the fruit growers association would be pissed offoff of they corrected their earlier advice To be fair the issue of sugar wouldn't be half so bad if kids weren't so sedantry now. Probably years ago eating 5 bits of fruit wouldn't be so bad but now as kids are driven to school and sit playing video games at home they don't get to burn excess energy off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 You never see a fat lazy monkey do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 You never see a fat lazy monkey do you? they wank a lot though. Not sure if there's a correlation like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgoefc Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Another one is the government scientists realising that it is sugar that is bad for you. Even the natural unrefined sugars found in fruit. The government told us years ago to eat lots of fruit and veg every day. What they should have said was eat lots of veg but only one piece of fruit. Problem is, the fruit growers association would be pissed offoff of they corrected their earlier advice on this one its a tad more complex - types of saccharides and all that. However, I think its the additional sugar in the form of added sucrose and high fructose corn sugar added to sweets and processed food that tips things over. The fructose in fruit is there but everything else in fruit such as vitamins, enzymes, co factors, minerals antioxidants and fibre means you should go with the fruit first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.b62530c1c83b3e0815550f8c929bbbbb.webp)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.