Minty

Lovely.

Probably worth clarifying that that's not Gemmel's opinion, he's quoting a comment on the article...! Would hate someone to get the wrong idea!

So little humility, so much arrogance from some. Talking as though they have seen the future and know exactly what will happen. Really quite sad IMO.

Stick around, if there's going to be one worse, it'll be on SaintsWeb somewhere.

Just been announced, match is a draw, England retain the Ashes.

Up to the umpires and the captains I would suggest... standing water on the field now, which would need some time to mop up even if it stopped raining. My prediction is that it'll be called a draw at about 1700.

Apportioning blame is a pointless exercise at the best of time... apportioning blame for something that hasn't actually gone wrong yet is a whole new level of stupid IMO.

Done.

By popular demand:

Of course not, that's exactly what it was intended for...

I hereby name this thread as the first official receiver of one of these:

A quick lunchtime edit, et voila, transparent backgrounds too: 250px wide 150px wide 80px wide 30px wide (and perfect for adding to this forum's smiley list...) Download and use to your hearts content.

Personally I agree, but I won't be making any assumptions and would rather do my bit for the things I know about, than tell my kids 'Yeah, sorry, we knew it was going pear-shaped, but didn't do anything about it, cos we assumed something else would happen first'. Think that was Bexy m'lud.

Don't suppose there's any chance this thread can stay on topic is there? Find it quite interesting when it does...

About the same as everything else, ever then? We act on the best information available to us in EVERY aspect of life. So why not with this? This intrigues me. In virtually every other aspect of life, we accept that we can only act on the data available to us, and that scientific consensus (usually not as clear cut as it is in this case too) is to be respected. So why, with regard to Climate Change, do some people insist that 'we don't know enough' and therefore shouldn't act at all? I've said it before on this thread and elsewhere... a precautionary principle is just plain common sense in this case. The only reasons I see why people don't agree are usually, unfortunately, selfish ones. Also, I'm all for scepticism... it is one of the bedrocks of scientific progress, to question what has gone before. It is absolutely correct that we challenge things - but it's the reasons WHY we challenge them that are important. People need to be utterly honest with themselves. I challenge stuff because I want to know more about it, and check if assertions are true, to minimise doubt and try to get to the absolute truth (as much as we physically can). Sadly, I think many people challenge things because they don't like what they hear and aren't prepared to believe what they hear. One final point - no one WANTS climate change to be happening. Most normal people who believe it is a significant problem would absolutely LOVE for there to be clear proof that Humans are not contributing to it. I take no pleasure from engaging in debates like this to potentially highlight that, according to scientific consensus, it's generally bad news. Why would I? Even if you think that scientists are 'only in it for the money'(!), what's in it for me? It's because, IMO, there are clear, rational, evidenced-based facts that lead me to this conclusion, and therefore it is morally right that we, as a race, need to act to change that.

Just to clarify, as I've not been back since I posted the graphic, it is referring to peer-reviewed papers that give an opinion about the cause of climate change... 97% of papers that give an opinion, agree that current prevailing changes to climate are caused by humans.

Shocking miss but encouraging play overall so far.

Given where Exile Gym is, in Shirley, would it be too much of a leap of faith to assume that the contestants drink in the Windsor Castle? Might explain a thing or two.

Can we just rename this thread 'Pick holes in Pap' seeing as it looks like the original thread is seemingly redundant now? lol

I agree with some of what he has written, I don't agree with other bits. Where I feel so inclined, I will reply to him if I feel it is worth doing so. If I don't think I won't. Pretty simply really. I just think it's a shame when threads get diluted by personal crusades and attempts to discredit others, rather than debating the wider issue. I can't answer for him and wouldn't want to try to do so. Personally, I do try to do my bit in areas that I believe are appropriate, hence why I run a social enterprise business. But there is a difference from acknowledging that we as a country are wealthy in all aspects of life, compared to many of those who come here as immigrants, to judging individuals on what they would do with a cash windfall. I believe we need to look beyond the short-term issue of these people somehow being a drain on our society, and look at why these inequalities exist in the world in the first place and help to address things at source where we can.

So why not ignore him if you feel that way and actually try to contribute to the main content of the thread rather than marginalise it and try to make it a personal issue?

I would actually agree that pap is being very judgemental on the Border Control officers... especially from just that photo.

I realise I also took things off track a bit earlier, but why persist with such a personal line, when this is clearly an issue that relates to more than just any one individual. And if you're looking for a hypocrite btw, then that's all of us. Saves you a bit of hassle. We've all commented on issues that we've actually done something different about at some time or another. We're human, that's what we do. The moral high ground is a desolate place and none of us occupy it.

Sorry Barry/ant, we digressed... back to you guys.