Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 967 comments are related to the topic:
Climate Change
Climate Change
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 967
|
By:
oh hang on sorry I forgot it errr october
cancel my last missive I suppose it will be tial waves and earthquakes here next SCARE SCARE!! I am well above river level we have special foundations raising us several feet but the driveway is at river level we had to move all my cars one night that was funny only a few yards -yet neighbours adjacent in the road got flooded coz of the lack of drainage - another story |
|
By:
tidal wave
now off to count my gold coins one on a triple tonight good luck everyone |
|
By:
Snowflake
You still haven't explained which part of the global warming theory you disagree with & why. Just replying "wibble - bear - wibble" is not an explanation. You are showing us how little you understand basic science. |
|
By:
New report says that polar bears are doing well despite reductions in sea-ice.
Toronto, 27 February: In a new report published by London-based think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, zoologist Susan Crockford says that predictions that climate change is bringing about the demise of these iconic creatures have proven to be far from the mark. Dr Crockford’s report, published to mark International Polar Bear day, makes clear that although Arctic sea-ice has declined to levels not expected until 2050 and widely predicted to cause catastrophe for polar bears, their numbers have remained stable, or have even increased slightly. As she explains “Ice levels during the key feeding period in Spring have been good, and prey species have been abundant. It’s not really a surprise that polar bears are doing so well.” And in the Southern Beaufort Sea, the one area where polar bear numbers have fallen, the reason appears to be too much sea ice rather than too little. “The fearmongering from the media and the polar bear specialists is now backfiring”, says Crockford. “They convinced the world that polar bears were doomed but the facts got out. Now would be a good time to set the story straight.” The State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 summarises clear, reliable and concise information on the current state of polar bears in the Arctic since 2014, relative to historical records. It highlights up-to-date data and research findings in a balanced and factual format that avoids hype and exaggeration. It is intended for a wide audience, including scientists, teachers, students, decision-makers and the general public |
|
By:
Polar Bears Doing Just Fine Shock
A World Wildlife Fund photograph taken along the western shore of Hudson Bay in November 2010 shows a female polar bear with two cubs near Churchill, Canada, in this file image released to Reuters on February 9, 2011.Reuters/Geoff York/WWF Susan Crockford, arguably the world’s greatest polar bear expert, has some really bad news for environmentalists. Their favorite ursine poster child of climate doom is doing great. Polar bear populations are stable, if not growing. That stuff you read in the liberal media about bears starving to death because thin summer sea ice is pure nonsense. The only evidence we have that polar bears are in any kind of trouble is the fake evidence of activists’ computer models. Crockford’s full State of the Polar Bear Report 2017, produced for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, can be read here. Here is a summary of its conclusions: • Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur. • Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of low summer sea ice levels. • The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by Barents Sea polar bears and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears. • As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival. • Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce. • A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014– 2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice. • Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproven by DNA studies. • Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon. Or – short version – pretty much everything that Greenpeace, the WWF, the IPCC, the IUCN, the Guardian, CNN and the New York Times have ever told you about polar bears is a lie. This video tells the truth. What particularly interests me about Crockford’s report are the extraordinary similarities it shows between global warming alarmism and polar bear alarmism. In theory, there ought to be no connection whatsoever. Global warming studies, after all, involve scientific specialities like meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, palaeoclimatology. Polar bear studies, on the other hand, tend much more to lie in the realm of zoology. In reality, however, the scientists involved in each of these fields have reached their alarmist conclusions using the same method: computer models based on flawed assumptions. The computer models for climate change don’t work because they overestimate the impact on global temperatures of anthropogenic CO2. The computer models for polar bear populations don’t work because they overestimate factors like the thinness of summer sea ice. Crockford sums up the issue here: One reason that the 2007 predictions of future polar bear survival were so far off base is that the model developed by American biologist Steven Amstrup (now at Polar Bears International, an NGO) assumed any polar bear population decline would be caused by less summer ice, despite the Beaufort Sea experience. Moreover, Amstrup and fellow modelers were overly confident in their claim that summer ice was critical for the polar bear’s survival and they had little data on which to base their assumption that less summer ice would devastate the polar bears’ prey. Consequently, many scientists were surprised when other researchers subsequently found that ringed and bearded seals (the primary prey of polar bears) north of the Bering Strait especially thrived with a longer open-water season, which is particularly conducive to fishing: These seals do most of their feeding in summer. More food for seals in summer means more fat seal pups for polar bears to eat the following spring, a result that’s probably true throughout the Arctic. As long as polar bears have lots of baby seals to eat in spring, they get fat enough to survive even a longer-than-usual summer fast. And while it’s true that studies in some regions show polar bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, there is no evidence that more individuals are starving to death or becoming too thin to reproduce because of less summer ice. It gets worse. Not only have alarmists overestimated the significance of summer ice on polar bear populations, but they have also underestimated (or deliberately ignored because it doesn’t suit their narrative) the effects of thick spring ice. My close examination of recent research has revealed that serious inconsistencies exist within the polar bear literature and between that literature and public statements made by some researchers. For example, Canadian polar bear biologist Ian Stirling learned in the 1970s that spring sea ice in the southern Beaufort Sea periodically gets so thick that seals depart, depriving local polar bears of their prey and causing their numbers to plummet. But that fact, documented in more than a dozen scientific papers, is not discussed today as part of polar bear ecology. In these days of politicized science, neither Stirling nor his colleagues mention in public the devastating effects of thick spring ice in the Beaufort Sea; instead, they imply in recent papers that the starving bears they witnessed are victims of reduced summer sea ice, which they argued depleted the bears’ prey. There are also strong indications that thick spring-ice conditions happened again in 2014–16, with the impacts on polar bears being similarly portrayed as effects of global warming. In other words, polar bear zoology is yet another scientific field which has become hijacked for political reasons by alarmists who choose to ignore real world evidence in favor of a specious narrative. How else do you explain the extraordinary fact that the polar bear has made its way on to the danger list of a number of conservation bodies? The IUCN Red List (in 2006, then again in 2015) calls it “vulnerable” to extinction The US Fish and Wildlife Service (as recently as 2016) has listed it as “threatened” with extinction under the US Endangered Species Act. Environment Canada (2008 and 2011) has listed it as of “special concern.” These designations are a flat out lie. There is no credible real world evidence whatsoever to suggest that the polar bear is in any kind of trouble. The researchers and conservation bodies that pretend otherwise are participating in fraud. |
|
By:
Tony Heller : My Gift To Climate Alarmists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU |
|
By:
US was hotter before 1960 but the alarmists only show figures from 60 - I have banged on about lying with graphs and stats but have been laughed at - same with the bear hoax - there figures are on the up and have been for decades
IT IS A GLOBAL WARMIST INQUISITION LIE!!! |
|
By:
no bees but then it is october - I was just trying to scare everyone like the global warming inquistion on here try to do
but it is quite warm at the moment PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
By:
Snowflake
Are you telling lies without bothering to show any graphs. You claim was hotter before 1960 in USA compared to last decade or so???? Yet not one shred of evidence- no data, no link to the story. Is this the whole of USA or maybe one steel factory in Detroit which closed in 2005? Who knows "wibble" There is data from before 1960 - not much satellite data for some reason - is that what you are referring to Moisok? |
|
By:
As is the normal case on here Mex, you have been suckered into a false official narrative.
Unlike many of the uneducated masses you have been given an opportunity to see through it however you choose to stay with what the required perception is. Read this ... November 28, 2012 Fourteen Is the New Fifteen! By Arvind Kumar According to the leaders of the global warming doomsday cult, the average surface temperature of Earth is 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit), but this is a new value which has quietly replaced the original average of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). In March 1988, a few months before NASA's James Hansen asserted before the Congress that global warming was in progress, the New York Times quoted him as saying that he used 59 degrees Fahrenheit as the average global temperature to calculate the temperature variations. One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations. In July of the same year, a report in the Connecticut-based newspaper The Day was consistent with this claim. According to the Day's report on Hansen's congressional testimony: Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Although Hansen's recent publications provide his version of the differences from the base temperature for various years, he is careful enough not to provide either the observed temperatures or the value of the baseline temperature. However, Hansen at one time revealed his base value in an academic publication. That paper, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," appeared in Science in August 1981 and states: |
|
By:
November 28, 2012
Fourteen Is the New Fifteen! By Arvind Kumar According to the leaders of the global warming doomsday cult, the average surface temperature of Earth is 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit), but this is a new value which has quietly replaced the original average of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). In March 1988, a few months before NASA's James Hansen asserted before the Congress that global warming was in progress, the New York Times quoted him as saying that he used 59 degrees Fahrenheit as the average global temperature to calculate the temperature variations. One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations. In July of the same year, a report in the Connecticut-based newspaper The Day was consistent with this claim. According to the Day's report on Hansen's congressional testimony: Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Although Hansen's recent publications provide his version of the differences from the base temperature for various years, he is careful enough not to provide either the observed temperatures or the value of the baseline temperature. However, Hansen at one time revealed his base value in an academic publication. That paper, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," appeared in Science in August 1981 and states:The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288 K. Two hundred and eighty-eight K, or 288 Kelvin, is the same as 15 degrees Celsius. A report in the Schenectady-based Daily Gazette indicates that Hansen and his colleague Helene Wilson used this value at least as late as 1992. Thus, Hansen consistently used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline average for several years. James Hansen was not the only person to use this value. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up soon after Hansen's 1988 testimony before the Congress, came out with its First Assessment Report in 1990, a table on page xxxvii of the report listed the "Observed Surface Temperature" of Earth as 15 degrees Celsius. Yet another person who used 15 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature was Anthony J. McMichael, an activist professor whose e-mail promising to pull strings in the Australian government figured in the Climategate scandal. According to McMichael's 1993 book, Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species: Average temperature over past 10,000 years = 15°C As it turned out, the average temperature of 15 degrees Celsius was an inconvenient value that did not support the allegations of global warming. In 1996, Michael Mann (who shot to fame during the Climategate scandal as the creator of "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline") co-authored a paper titled "Greenhouse Warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: Model versus observations." The paper pointed out that the predictions made by climate models were not consistent with observed data and the variability in temperature likely resulted from natural phenomena. ... the signature of greenhouse warming is scarcely evident in the observational data[.] ... It is possible that observed trends in phase, largely influenced by mid-latitude continental interiors, do not arise from greenhouse warming, but rather from natural variability. Such a notion is reinforced by the fact that marginally-significant trends are found in the control GFDL annual cycle, presumably due to organized century-scale internal variability. If, on the other hand, the observed variation in the seasonal cycle truly represents a "fingerprint" of greenhouse warming, the GFDL and CCM1 models do not appear capable of capturing the detailed responses of the seasonal cycle to greenhouse forcing. ... Discrepancies between the observed and model-predicted trends must be resolved before a compelling connection can be drawn between 20th century changes in the behavior of the annual cycle in temperature, and anthropogenic forcing of the climate. Significantly, Mann used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline temperature while calculating the parameters of the annual temperature cycle (see Figure 2 in his paper). Although he could have picked any value in the cycle, he picked 15 degrees Celsius, and it is reasonable to assume that he did so because it was the accepted long-term global average temperature. Not long after Mann's paper was published, the Worldwatch Institute, an organization based in Washington, D.C., came out with the 1997 edition of Vital Signs, its annual publication. The publication had a chapter with the title "Global Temperature Down Slightly." In literature published after the 1997 report by Worldwatch Institute, the leaders of the global warming movement seem to have started using 14 degrees Celsius for the global average temperature. In 2002, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted James Hansen, who mentioned this new average. This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world. The IPCC too now uses 14 degrees Celsius as its base temperature, as can be seen from a graph that is part of its 2007 document. (As an aside, it was in 2007 that IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. IPCC certainly deserved a Nobel Prize, but it should have been for literature, as the organization had excelled in writing fantasy.) More recently, a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office attributes an estimated average surface air temperature of 287 K, or 14 degrees Celsius, to James Hansen and his colleagues. But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010). It is hard to pinpoint the exact date when the change from 15 degrees to 14 degrees was introduced. It most likely happened sometime in 1997, and definitely no later than January of 1998. The 1998 edition of the annual publication of Worldwatch Institute uses 14 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature and provides details of how it was informed of the change from 15 degrees Celsius. On page 69 of the report, a footnote below the table listing the global average temperatures for several years states: |
|
By:
To break that down for you ....
There is obviously changes in the climatic system. There always has been. There always will be ! There is also little doubt that the population of the world can all help in cleaning up their own act, however.............. This is what has happened here..... If the facts do not support the narrative then alter the facts !!! It is a lie, A deception. Year upon year they build these matters to substantiate an ultimate agenda and fools like you buy into for the bollox every single time. Do me a favour and b4 you spout your never ending tripe just do some research of your own and see if you can finally comprehend the big picture. It is there but you have to find it. If someone tells you what it is you will all too easily fall back onto the official nonsense as that is the comfortable route. As it is for the majority  Open your f***ing eyes man  At the end of the day it will all come down to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and it will be Joe Public who pays. As is the unwritten rule  |
|
By:
In other words, James Hansen sent word that 14 is the new 15.
|
|
By:
John, have a read of "ZERO CARBON,5G DENIAL AND GREEN FASCISM" totally blows what is really is about out of the water.
Green New Deal=Agenda 21/2030. No wonder all the 1% slags are on board  |
|
By:
Thanks Terry.
|
|
By:
"Why is it the two "zero Carbon" send a cool shiver down my spine"?
"I wasn't sure until I looked up "Zero Carbon" within a scientific context addressing greenhouse gasses,and the answer that came back was this, "if there was no greenhouse gasses the average temp on Earth would be -18 degrees Celsius".Now I know why the cool shiver passed down my spine" |
|
By:
So the elite want to get rid of the carbon emissions to bring down temperatures to -18 degrees?
It makes sense now why they want carbon emissions reduced. And while at it they want us to pay the carbon tax! What clever people! |
|
By:
"An exploration of the roots of the ambition to achieve "Zero Carbon" revels a direct link to "climate action"/"climate emergency" measures promoted via extinction rebellion,advocates of a Green New Deal and the "sustainable development" edicts of the United Nations Agenda 21 now renamed Agenda 30"
No surprise these bastards are behind it all then. |
|
By:
Do ACM proponents like Mex and Charlie want to see a pause in the building of UK infrastructure including housing?
Round my way 3k houses are planned on largely greenfield sites. Villages merge with each other, towns are no longer separated from one another. London, Brum, Manchester etc are spreading outwards. More building = greater heat. Go to a city on a hot day and it'll be stinking hot. So why aren't Attenborough, Prince Harry and Corbyn not calling for a pause in building????? Corbyn advocates the opposite! 1 million 'affordable' homes in 10 years. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Injera
the issue regarding more housing has far more to do with rising UK population & expectation of more space than a couple of generations ago (don't listen to Terr's lies about population falling) , the opposition don't want a pretty village/ town being changed by thousands of new people arriving. I'm experiencing a similar situation to you. My main concern regarding the tin foil hat liars is their ability to post complete BS & refusal to back up any claim with evidence or even engage and answer the most simple questions. They tend to be uneducated males who refuse to believe anything they don't understand. Unfortunately that is pretty much all science & mathematics. John sums this up. Simple question to him - which of the 3 simple parts of the global warming theory do you disagree with. Rather than engaging he cuts n pastes pages of unproven noncence without a link to the right- wing conspiracy website it came from. I'm happy to engage & answer questions with anyone who shows the same basic courtesy. These uneducated liars refuse to answer simple questions (a 5 year old knows that a thermometer is better at measuring temperature than a polar bear) |
|
By:
14 is the new 15. Explain that mex. The onus is on you to justify the lie. See what nonsense you can fill up the pages with explaining that ??????
When i see a lie i know there is a problem. END OF THREAD REALLY. So i am off for a hot cuppa as it is freezing here |
|
By:
And you can stick all of your tin foil hat nonsense down into the sand along with your dopey bonce.
You are the liar on here. You refuse to see what is put in front of you. Now justify the new 14 please. |
|
By:
John
Even though you never answer a question I will engage with your post. You are wrong again John 14 is not the new 15 . 14 is still equal to 14. Were you successful at Maths John. How were your A level results? |
|
By:
Maybe John you can now explain which part of the Global warming theory you disagree with?
|
|
By:
I like it when the Waffler posts stuff as it just confirms he has no idea.
Just the one question for him to start: why are temperature anomalies and not absolute temperatures used? Odds on him answering sensibly without a copy and paste job are 1000/1. |
|
By:
all you have to do is chop the graphs to scare people Q.E.D.
etc that is what they did - another one is to shorten the bottom line (say of time) squeeze it up and on the vertical right hand side of the graph the detail line shoots up making it alarming (sharp rises) etc lengthen the graph by several inches (on screen/paper) and the rise is moderated hugely simple cheating with graphs I have banged on about graph interference for years. |
|
By:
Yep that's all you have to do to fool thousands of scientists. Give us a relevant example with your source and an explanation of what's wrong. Odds on you doing that 1000/1.
|
|
By:
WTF John???
There is a tad more to the Global warming theory than a few graphs. There is shed loads of temperature readings & vast computer power. There are papers being published & reviewed every day. |
|
By:
We live on a planet the climate of which has fluctuated for eons. From unimaginable heights to unimaginable depths. A cyclical process which also has huge periods of temperate climate. We live in one of those periods but even then highs and lows exist. Romans grew grapes throughout Southern Britannia a couple of thousand years ago and the River Thames used to freeze solid for months on end a couple of hundred years ago.
Global warming exists as it always has done and there's nothing we can do about it... but man-made global warming?? Don't make me larf!! |
|
By:
Also on the topic of the abject climate alarmist Michael Mann - and his fraudulent "hockey stick" graph.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him. What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case. The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. .... |
|
By:
ieff7
You should't believe everything you read on the net but sometimes you should read the entire thread. Charlie • October 14, 2019 9:25 AM BST Michael E. Mann took climate change deniers to court. They apologized. https://grist.org/article/michael-e-mann-took-climate-change-deniers-to-cour... (June 14th 2019). In 2011, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann sued a Canadian think tank that published an interview suggesting his work on climate change was fraud. Eight years later, the Winnipeg-based Frontier Center for Public Policy — which often promotes climate change denial — apologized Friday and wiped the inflammatory interview from its website. “(The apology) gives me faith in our legal system that truth can still win out, even in an era of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts,'” Mann said in an email to National Observer. Charlie • October 14, 2019 9:46 AM BST I suppose I should add that in response to your: Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.” is just nonsense as his lawyer states Michael Mann's statement about the court case with Dr Tim Ball: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568 (23rd August 2019) The BC Supreme Court has never made any finding, directly or indirectly, that you failed to produce your data. The August 22, 2019 ruling said nothing on that subject. Ball's request that the lawsuit be terminated - for delay - relied heavily on his state of health. Charlie • October 14, 2019 9:55 AM BST Michael Mann 30th August 2019 https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1166711465597968384 Any allegation that we did not provide materials ordered by the court is a baseless, malicious falsehood. There was no such court order. I am amazed that anyone with an ounce of common sense would dare make such a specious accusation. |
|
By:
GHARLIE, you and your cohorts are clueless. As is clearly identified here in your own words,
Charlie Charlie23 Sep 19 18:33Joined: 01 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 27,696 | Blogger: Charlie's blog One of the greatest speeches of all time by Greta. I applaud her You will always be classified as a hopeless no nothing and frankly i applaud that  You don't have to know to much about this bollox becoz that is all it is. When people lie as much as you and your gang of dopes do, there is always something being hidden. You all showed your hand with your complete lack of knowledge regarding the events on 911 and from that moment going forward i knew none of you would ever research anything properly and would only be steered directly into whatever lie the powers that be throw in your direction. Hey ho ! Maybe it is time you all grew some and faced the reality that your lives are a sham and the nonsense you have readily accepted has been a mistake. Until that time you will remain in the penn with the rest of the flock. 14 IS THE NEW 15. THEY LIED. THEY DECEIVED. THEY DON'T CARE. IT IS ALL A CHARADE. DEAL WITH IT END OF THREAD. |
|
By:
Mexico.. FFS man. You explain to me why that nasa scientist hansen lied. ???
The onus is on you to justify why you believe him after the LIE END OF THREAD. |
|
By:
Organic food could be bad for Climate Charge, well we better eat sh1t then. That's the latest. GM Foods has been the plan for years
|
|
By:
John said End of Thread. Twice. And you still posting terry.
Can we all go back to 5G? It was much more fun than this climate problem I don''t even understand why we're so worried about it. |
|
By:
south engerland is slowly sinking below the waves coz there are only a few scottish persons to balance the other end of the british isles - They all live in engerland now. Of course there is an obvious answer to this but I like my Glaswegian mates!!
So us Mercians will sacrifice ourselves. But then we always were heroes.  |
|
By:
In fact I have uncovered this dastardly plan - The SNP is sending more and more here - her and the traitorous welcoming scum here will welcome millions more and we will sink!! - they will survive in SNP land and Murcia will be no more
you heard it here first. |
|
By:
just waiting for mex, charlie and whispering to call me a liar etc etc - how boring are these THREE DENIERS
not a bad name for them hehe |
|
By:
H.A.A.R.P. yet again
|