would that be the joke about the three polar bears - mummy, daddy and baby - where baby goes up to his daddy and asks whether he is all polar bear 100% polar bear, no other bear but just polar bear - and daddy says of course you are - so he goes up to his mother and asks whether he is all polar bear, 100% polar bear, no other bear but just polar bear and his mother says of couse you are, why do you ask - and baby polar says 'because I'm ****ing freezing'
I wonder how Charlie and his entourage got up to Glasgow. I bet they didn't use Ellie Rose coaches. Two faced xxxx.
The Elephant in the room, untill this issue is adressed which of course it won't be everything else is just pissing in the wind. I see myself as a enviromentalist having previously fought to save ancient meadows/wetlands in the hull area from development and am in favour of far greater habitat protection and pollution controls but not sure i buy into climate change, in the last 2,000 years Britain as seen changes in temperature that saw the Romans grow grapes and the shorelines/sea levels around Brough and the east coast were much higher than they are now. as well as swings the other way that saw the Thames regulary freeze up circa 1700's. I for one will not be gaslighted by some celebrity or billionare telling me what i can eat or where i can travel when said people have already caused more pollution to the planet than i ever will.
'There is an near-complete scientific consensus that the climate is warming and this is caused by human activities. Agreement in recent literature reached over 99%'. I don't care what 99% of scientists say, I'm not buying into this climate change rubbish.
You may want to check what that concensus actually refers to. Many of the scientists that found themselves included in it have commented on the inaccuracy of such claims. Few with an understanding of the scientific process would make the comment.
Those are the ones who are probably being paid off by the oil industry. Much like the tobacco industry, they've been doing it for decades. Or do you disagree? I think it's much safer to go with the consensus in this instance. After all, many scientists believe that it has reached the 'gold standard' of scientific certainty.
Certain human activities are contributing to global warming is more accurate. The degree of the impact of man on the warming by these activities may well be disputed by some scientists, but most scientists agree that human activities play their part in the equation.
Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hannel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming
There are aspects of that to debate, but it's still a long way from the way the claim is implied by people that don't understand it. The problem is made worse because people that don't understand it, tend to get defensive and look for anything that supports their view, rather than trying to understand the issues. It all just leads to an expensive way of producing new problems.
I understand it, I've read articles that make it clear about its origins. I will however admit that my brain is rather right-side oriented, so doesn't often retain that kind of information.
I'm a little puzzled. It's an extremely complex issue, but what exactly are people claiming/misunderstanding and what new problems are being created as a result of their misguided understanding(s) ?
Humans are certainly making the planet more polluted. But the weather situation confuses me, extreme changes in weather is nothing new for our planet. We’ve had several ice ages followed by Mediterranean (ish) climate 2000 years ago. All of this before industrialisation & deforestation etc. So I’m very confused on what to believe tbh Maybe this a just part of the planets natural cycle? But we should still cut emissions & pollutions
Apparently it's been discovered that 'Big Oil' has a stall set up at the heart of COP26, despite reassurances that it would not be the case.