1949threepence

Well that's an appalling description as well. It's full of little dings, especially on the reverse. Also the marks in the reverse legend.

logical...........

According to an article in April's Coin News, DNW will henceforth - from April - be known as "Noonans". Although it's now 28th April and I've seen no evidence of it yet. Small screenshot from article. Can't do anymore as it uses up too many kilobytes:-

Ah finally found it. On that page marked above, amongst a number of other clickables was this. I shouldn't be so thick as to imagine it would just be a simple matter of initially clicking on "your cabinet".

I dunno, maybe it's me. Just seems weird I'm encountering all these obstacles. Just looking again for my saved item. When I go into my account I see "Your cabinet", when I click on that it doesn't actually take me to my cabinet (why not?), but to another page which says, "This is your entry point to visit areas of our website dedicated to you.....". There is also what looks like another link to "your cabinet", but it's not clickable. Tried on two devices with the same result. I don't get what I'm doing wrong. If it's going to be this difficult, I'm not sure it's worth the ongoing frustration and waste of time.

Just been looking through the preview catalogue for 28th to 29th September - 27 pages not broken down into type (such as British Coins from various properties, as they used to be), so had to wade through the entire list of 1065. I find one coin I'm interested in and save to my cabinet. Then when I went to look, I clicked on my cabinet, only to be taken to what looked like another link marked "my cabinet", except it wasn't clickable, So can't even take another look. Utterly shambolic.

The farming issue in the Netherlands - ordering the amount of food production to be reduced - is just pure insanity in a hungry world - link Pleased to hear that their agricultural minister got a load of slurry dumped on his doorstep. It's time there was a PROPER face to face debate on climate change without those who dare to disagree being closed down. I believe GB News are trying to arrange one.

Very interesting and shows deliberate confirmation bias in action.

We don't ignore it, but we don't make the lives of the public so miserable as a result, that the entire collective quality of life is reduced. That's insanity. Were it not for these daft green agenda targets, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now vis a vis shortage of energy supply. We'd be self sufficient with no need to import from anywhere. ETA: that wasn't the only video on a new ice age by the way. Just a convenient one to post. I'd place serious money that if you'd heard it at the time, you wouldn't have been dismissing it because of global warming. Because GW never became a thing until about 1989, just 10 years after a threatened ice age. You couldn't make some of this stuff up if you worked on it for a century.

Well no, it's not funny at all. It merely emphasises how viewpoints on climate change over time - and not very much time in the grand scheme of thingse either - and all are the result of dogmatic thinking. Back then you would have been shouted down for suggesting that the Earth was warming up. Now it's the opposite. The truth is that we don't control the weather and our influence over it is very marginal at most. To attempt to drastically alter all our lives based on this thinking, is utterly insane.

A video narrated by Leonard Nimoy about the forthcoming ice age, late 70's. He's deadly serious as well. Honestly you couldn't make it up. All these people, including the Co2 emission bods, are all so utterly convinced of their own righteousness.

Then of course, in 1974, the BBC were predicting another ice age. Something they would cringe at being reminded of these days. The article you link to is interesting, but it's the same old thing, Co2 emissions. It shows a very limited and blinkered view of climate change. There are many other considerations with something as complex as the global weather machine.

You might find this link interesting. It details UK conditions for the period from 4000BC to just after AD. It points to the fact that the climate has always been very variable. Another link about climate changes over recent centuries, here was written in 1967 at a time when fact and logic entered the equation, as opposed to the biased hysteria of the present day.

If you wish. It's odd you can't see @oldcopper's posts.

Well that's just the thing. I don't think the average person does think that. The average person retains an open mind.

It is when the assertions are open to debate but any questioning view is dismissed as the work of conspiracy theorists or climate change deniers.

By the way, can I just say that nobody is trying to "disprove" climate change. We know it's a fact in being in terms of increasing temperatures. At the risk of repeating myself the argument is purely about the underlying cause, whether:- a) solely down to Co2 emissions and it's completely and utterly impossible for any other factors to have any influence, because we say so. b) partly down to Co2 emissions, and partly down to other factors such as the Sun. c) completely unconnected with Co2 emissions and would have happened anyway. As far as I and many others are concerned that debate remains firmly open and we (me certainly) have no intention of being browbeaten and bullied into accepting the current orthodoxy.

Why have you studiously ignored all of Old Copper's posts on this thread? Especially the ones quoting you - some very detailed rebuttals. Yet you choose to take issue with the very short and unarguable post I made about houses in Canada.

The other thing that was once shoved in our faces as evidence of global warming, was pictures of wooden houses in Northern Canada, some of which were leaning at a crazy angle. It was said that they were sinking into the ground because the ground beneath was melting. I later discovered from a Canadian that the real reason was because the heating/cooking stoves inside the dwellings, were not properly insulated from the ground and/or the stilts were too short/non existent. So the melting was purely down to that. Hence why only some of the houses were affected.

Oh, c'mon, that is BS writ large. Considering that the orthodoxy on Co2 emissions being solely responsible for higher global temperatures, has got a complete and total strangle hold over the MSM and political leaders worldwide, I truly cannot lend credence to your link. Genuine scientists disagreeing with the current climate change opinions are not "conspiracy theorists". They just disagree with other scientists.

It's not a conspiracy theory, simply a variance of scientific opinion. read and learn

They can unequivocally state what they choose. I choose not to 100% agree with them and retain an open mind on the issue, as do many others. Until that becomes an arrestable offence I will continue to do so. You choose to be brainwashed by orthodoxy. Your choice.

Indeed so, and if you happen to be even slightly at odds with/or question the mainstream narrative, you're labelled a climate change "denier". In fact, we know the global temperature has gone up - that is hard quantitative fact. The debate lies in what precisely has caused it. Co2 is just one of a whole range of possibilities. But among the mainstream scientific community, only one is allowed any headroom, that relating to Co2. Nothing else: which to my way of thinking is manifestly unintelligent. The temperatures have been rising for a lot longer than is ever discussed. Glaciers formed in the ice age have been in continuous retreat for centuries. I've got a book first published in 1943 called, oddly enough "The Weather". It's a Penguin book by G.H.Kimble. In it there is a chapter called "Is our climate changing?" I wish I could reproduce it all here, but I obviously can't. In the chapter there are headings such as "When Greenland was greener" (11th century) and "The vineyards of England". The author mentions that in Scandinavia and the British Isles rises of the order of 1 to 2 degrees F (so about 1 degree C) occurred between about 1843 and 1943. At Washington DC during the 20 year period ending 1892, there was a total of 354 days with freezing temperatures (overnight minimums). For the 20 year period ending in 1933, that had dropped to 237. In Oslo the temperature rose nearly 4 degrees F, so about 2 degrees C between about 1850 and 1943. In Spitsbergen the average December temperature in 1943, was more than 10 degrees F higher then it was in 1913. Sadly we are confronted by completely closed minds who literally attribute all warming to Co2 emissions.

Plus, I think we can all see that with this kind of rhetoric:- they're not going to be in any mood to listen to the UK or anyone else talking to them about reducing Co2 emissions. Even so, if the XR mobs truly are serious and dedicated to reducing Co2, and not just a bunch of unthinking, incoherent idiots (which is what they sound like), they would still demonstrate outside the Chinese and Indian embassies. The fact they won't, leads one to the conclusion that they're really just frauds who like to cause trouble, and in particular heap opprobrium on the UK - so tediously predictable. SOURCE

1/ A quickly made up thought to excuse the loons 2/ agreed 3/ No it's not. Getting in the way of others is asking for trouble. Demonstrate, but do it in such a way that you don't deliberately make a nuisance of youreself. Always have the humility to realise that not everybody thinks the same as you. 4/ So produce a link supporting that assertion. 5/ Sorry, but I don't take seriously any statement that gets its knickers in a twist about the "Daily Mail" 6/ I'm afraid you have to accept that not everybody agrees with the climate change assumptions based on Co2 emissions. The climate has been changing for millenia and has been several degrees warmer than this. Moreover, your point excusing protestors glueing themselves to wherever, is a deflection. Personally, I think they should just be left there, glued to whatever, and re-organise the traffic round them. Unless attached to valuable paintings in museums, in which case just rip them off by force. They wouldn't do it again if they knew that would happen.