Weston Super Saint

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50401308 Climate change or natural phenomenom? Highest tide ever (1966) = 1.94m Second highest tide (2019) = 1.87m However, that is since records began in 1923 so potentially there could have been higher tides that weren't recorded. Does this occurence fit with current science - should there be more 'second highest tides ever' recorded around the globe to prove the science or is this just a one-off and a bit of bad luck for a city that is flooded anyway?

Lol.

Like the one that was predicted for voting to leave, that kind of real?

Imagine the opportunities....

What a load of pony

That's assuming they meet the joining criteria

Is this you still advocating debating the issues like an adult

Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that 'mankind' is contributing to climate change, but I also think that potentially we are also seeing a 'natural' climate change at the same time which is distorting figures - I have no evidence for this, just my opinion! Our planet has proved itself to be incredibly resilient over the millenia and whilst we are certainly doing some damage to mother earth, I suspect we are only really scratching the surface. The planet will survive - in one way, shape or form - long after mankind has destroyed itself (or a meteor hits and wipes everything out again!).

It's been an interesting argument to follow but I read the outcome of the court case differently to you.... My synopsis : Mann published 'hockey stick' and Ball asked for data sets and workings from Mann so his findings could be peer reviewed - standard practice in the scientific community. Mann refused to give Ball his 'workings' - the data sets are in the public domain. Ball attempted to reverse engineer the 'hockey stick' but the only way he could get close to the results that Mann published was by allegedly leaving out some of the data sets. Ball then called Mann a fraud. Mann sued Ball for libel due to his comments. As part of the libel case, Ball asked for Mann's workings and how he derived the results of his hockey stick as part of disclosure. I don't believe it is mentioned in the Judge's summary - nor do I think it legally should have been - but there was apparently a court order directing Mann to provide the information Ball asked for. 8 years down the line and Mann still hadn't produced the information so Ball applied for case against him to be thrown out. Judge threw out the case and awarded costs to Ball. I think the website producing their apology is a red herring as they presumably did that to cover their arses in case Mann decided to sue them as well. For me, the court case - and the fact that it was thrown out by the judge - was more about the decision by Mann NOT to provide his workings when ordered to do so by the court. Obviously that is open to interpretation but the logical assumption is that perhaps he did 'manipulate' some of the data.

I think it's disgraceful when (insert oponent's team here) player dived / bought a foul / got away with a handball / avoided a red card. However, I am absolutely fine with Southampton players diving / buying a foul / getting away with a handball / avoiding a red card. I guess it's not just politics where tribal loyalties exist

This is correct - ffs

No. I'm saying they aren't 'secrectly funded'.

Lol. You should take that up with HMRC as they are the ones that certify 'charitable status' for tax purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation So about as secretive as who funds the RNLI or the RSPCA - ffs!

Not a 'secret' if people know about it. ffs

Not much of a secret if you know it

Who says I'm 'desperate' to leave the EU - certainly not something I've ever said! FWIW I have been a strong advocate for ever closer ties within the EU to the point that my preference would be to have a completely united Europe with one leader / governor / ruler (call it what you wish), one parliament, one currency and one unified language. The EU as it is (in my humble opinion) is a disparate collection of greedy politicians from countries with their own seperate agendas and no common goals. For me, Brexit was about being 'all-in' or 'all-out'. Since (again, in my humbe opinion), my 'ideal' Europe is never going to be realistic and there are no signs that it will happen in my / my kids / my grandkids lifetimes, that is the reason I voted out. Sorry if that doesn't conform to the 'thick, racist' stereotype, but those are my reasons.

And yet the flip side is that China has a limit on the number of children that are allowed per family. Maybe Chinese families would like to have more children and more control over their reproductive decisions?

In what way was the referendum 'flawed'? It was a pretty straightforward vote wasn't it? Surely the election committee gave the go ahead?

Surely number 3 - "we must stabilize population" - is completely contrary to number 5 - "We must....guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions"....

Not really, I think - and I'm paraphrasing from a synopsis as I haven't seen the press conference - she is saying that give her the hot seat and she will cancel Brexit and the world will be filled with rainbows and beauty....

To be fair, according to some on here, all brexiteers are right wing racist scum, so to them it's very much a left and right thing.

I'm not sure she released any party policies - except the obvious remain stance - at the time the comment was posted so there wasn't a lot to discuss.

I understand that sarcasm can sometimes be a bit tricky to recognise in the written word, but when the sentence is almost an exact copy of what has previously been written (I've highlighted the relevant sections if it is still confusing), surely 'parody' is not something that can be missed?

It may take two to 'make an argument' but there's usually just the one that goes looking for it! Hello pot?