badgerx16

If global temperature rises are a consequence of higher CO2 levels, then reducing CO2 emissions should be a necessary action, and the money should be spent. If higher CO2 levels are a consequence of global warming, what factor/s is/are causing the warming ? How have these factors increased in their effect over the last 100 years, such that the correlation matches that supposedly demonstrated by 'evidence' of CO2 driving the warming ? Where does the increased CO2 come from under this hypothesis ? Does human action, ( fossil fuels, deforestation, oceanic pollution ), not have an effect in this case ?

So, if Cressida Dick were not the Commisioner and a man was instead, would we have this thread ?

He doesn't understand much about how anything works. He is a real world example of Monty Python's 'Upper Class Twit of the Year', demonstrating that no amount of money spent on an education can replace a head full of mashed potato. He is incapable of independant thought, is unable to answer questions, probably because he simply cannot comprehend what is being said, so reverts to waffle, prevarication, and as Greta said - "Blah, blah, blah".

Is anybody surprised ?

The obvious retort to that would be "scum floats to the top".

Dilly Ding Dilly Dong.

If you are trying to score a point against him, then at least make it clearer where you are aiming. 😉

A few people may have said that, most have pointed out that the Taliban and IS-K have been fighting each other for at least 5 years. It is Al-Quaeda that is the basis of the big unanswered question. Try to get your dictionary of Islamic militant terrorism up to date.

We don't need their peados, we seem to have enough of our own.

Well he does have the Chinese Government monitoring his situation.

Watford sacked their manager because "....recent results strongly indicate a negative trend...". What do ours indicate ?

Is it ironic that you think it's ironic ? 🤗

The Earth will survive, but will mankind ? Certainly with higher sea levels there will be less available land mass for us to over populate.

He would be OK, he can walk on water.

35 trillion today or no Earth tomorrow. Tough choice.

Humanity may well have to come collectively to a way of living that is far less consumerist and resource hungry. The World struggles to support the current population, and this will be especially so if the vast majority around the globe, who lack so much that the West considers 'normal', continue to desire the goods and lifestyle that the developed countries have in abundance. ( Let alone the environmental damage that mining for rare earth metals entails, and the polluting aspects of an increasing dependance on battey technologies for power and transport ).

Chicken and egg ? Analysis of historical data and archaeological / geological investigation shows a fairly consistant Global temperature range for the nearly 2000 years from 0AD to the 1930s. The subsequent years, to the present day, are the years of greatest increase in atmospheric CO2, and the years of greatest rate of increase of Global temperatures. This increase in CO2 can be attributed to direct action, such as the consumption of fossil fuels that generates CO2, to lesser direct factors such as the manufacturing of concrete, and to indirect actions, such as deforestation, reduction of 'green' environments, and pollution of the seas. which all reduce the amount of CO2 being extracted from the atmosphere naturally by plant and marine life. You then end up in a feedback loop where the warming attributed to icreased CO2 causes environmental changes that in turn serve to further reduce the ability of the Global environment to naturally balance CO2 levels. So to answer your question, human production of CO2 started the process but the rate of change is now being exacerbated by natural events. The trick now is to find a new point of balance, the genie is too far out of the bottle to be put back in and permit things to settle back to the measurements from 200 years ago.

Not wearing 'rose tints' at all. Sometimes irony and sarcasm are wasted on here. Go back up the thread, or any match thread, and count how many comments refer to 'big team bias'. Read the comments above about the upgrade of JWP's punishment, or the number of shirt pulls by Chelsea players that went 'unpunished'. I actually believe that there is some level of psychological influence that refs experience, partly due to the media pressure that the more affluent and successful teams can bring to bear in trying to preserve their dominance. It is not necessarily demonstrated in concious decsions, as the conspiracy theorists would claim, but things that are marginal can be tilted.

Technology that confirmed a win for the 'big' team ?

Still not convinced that third goal actually crossed the line.

Can anybody remember when Redmond last actually tried to take on an opponent ?

We need to defend crosses better - 2 unopposed headers scored, luckily 1 ruled out.

Why are there never defenders on the posts ?

Sometimes his medication kicks in, if only for a few lucid moments.