Peckris 2

I can't disagree. One thing I'd add is that businesses should have the energy cap applied the same as for consumers, which because it isn't, is seeing small businesses fail across the board, especially those which rely on gas and electricity such as catering establishments. I'd also add that tax cuts right now aren’t going to pay for this.

I don't think London Coins are positive either, by their saying "accompanied by a ticket saying...". Having said that, it does have the sharp clarity of a proof - I've never seen such a clearly defined set of national flowers on a currency example.

Erm.. how would we know?

Putin is another Stalin

Well, longer than what we are not storing...

Except that the biggest European countries have been storing gas. We don't have that capacity and buy gas as and when we need it. I think we will end up no less scared than anywhere else.

It rather looks as though your incuse A almost exactly corresponds to the (raised) A of ANNO, in size , style, and position on the edge.

https://h2bh.home.exetel.com.au/who-said/tony-heller/

That would be surprising - I thought they took great care with those crowns even wrapping them in special paper before sending them out?

What we need for self sufficiency - AS WELL AS alternatives like wind/wave/solar power - is the new (i.e. modern designs not 1950s) form of nuclear power. See Bill Gates on the subject: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Bill-Gates-Backed-Firm-Raises-750M-To-Develop-Small-Nuclear-Reactors.html

Not true. Despite Nimoy's ridiculous assertion (which, by the way, is one effect of climate change - even though the global average temperature is increasing, there are associated variations which can cause effects like snow where you wouldn't normally see it) 'global warming' has been a "thing" since long before that stupid video was made. It would be utterly insane to ignore the global increase in temperature whether or not it's entirely manmade, or whether or not CO2 is the biggest culprit.

Yeah, that's funny. Here's what brings climate change home to me: we as individuals tend to think vertically; in normal urban/suburban conditions we can see for no more than a few hundred metres, but if we look up we can see the sky, and that's a HUGE distance! Yet... if you were to travel 15 miles to see someone, you'd think nothing of it. What's 15 miles after all? But if you were to travel 15 miles vertically, you'd be in a very thin part of the atmosphere where the oxygen/pressure ratio would mean you'd have virtually no oxygen to breathe. Everest is 5 miles high and most people need supplementary oxygen there. I've read that 75% of the total mass of the Earth's atmosphere is in the first 10km. Our planet's atmosphere is comparatively thinner than the peel around an apple. We interfere with it at our peril!

There's a guy works down the hip shop swears he's Pelvis.

Interesting. However, also consider this which has been doing the rounds on social media and shows that warnings about climate change were around in 1912 - and earlier - though their forecasts of timescales were badly out. I also remember a dramatic edition of The News Of The World in 1970 which used as its headline the name of a then drama series on BBC - Doomwatch - and carried severe warnings and predictions of scientists of the time, about environmental disasters caused by man's activities. Unfortunately, the archive of NOTW hasn't been digitised yet and print copies of past editions are very expensive, or else I'd give you a link to that particular issue.

Agreed. Though there are conspiracy theory adherents who claim the whole climate change thing is a hoax, but there are some very strange people around. QAnon and Anti-Vaxxers just for starters! And don't get me going on the whole Twin Towers 'brought down by the Bush administration', or 'Paul is dead' thing...

I think we'll have to leave it that your definition of 'open mind' and mine, are different. Can we leave it there?

The problem is that both factions exist - you can't blame the average person for thinking that questioning the current scientific consensus could be evidence of them. However, I accept that you are not part of that whole scene.

Ok, that's reasonable. But I would say the debate is really over a) or b). I wouldn't say that presenting facts is either 'browbeating' or 'bullying'.

His posts are not visible to me.

1. I never heard that. 2. However, it seems a silly point (not you, I hasten to add) to 'prove' climate change. I accept the explanation, but cannot see that it in any way 'disproves' climate change.

Of course. Both are real! Documented evidence of big commercial interests protecting profits above all else.

Mostly true - yes, wine grapes were grown in British vineyards during the Roman occupation (I did Classics too!). Europe was warmer before the Little Ice Age, whose start date is not exactly known - the consensus seems to be mid-mediaeval but possibly as late as Tudor age - but ended in the mid-19th Century. However I'd take issue with "in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now." The global average temperature for the last 2000 years is shown in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg which indicates we are in a new situation compared with 'recent' (2 millennia!) history.

Oh wow. You watched all 3 one-hour episodes in the few minutes it took you to post your reply? And you wonder (no, you probably don't..) why I don't take you seriously?

When the leading sceptical opinion involves oil companies paying certain scientists to deny the role of fossil fuels in climate change, then that's pretty much anybody's definition of a conspiracy. watch and learn

I looked at that, and googled further about the 'World Climate Declaration' scepticism mentioned in that article (published in a Sceptic journal!). I uncovered this, which 1) shows that there is mining and oil company involvement in the organisation behind the Declaration (Clintel), and 2) quite a lot of questioning the scientific status of the signatories. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment