yorkie1999

43 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

I'll be echoing a lot of was leicsmac said here, but I would also like to discuss the points made.

 

Yes the climate certainly changes over time, I doubt you'd find many people denying that. The rate of change is far beyond what could be expected to occur naturally though. Furthermore, when the temperature change is plotted with the atmospheric CO2 concentration overlayed, I would say that the correlation is extremely persuasive.

 

I'm interested to understand your distrust of scientists as well. Is this a distrust solely of climate science, or does it extend elsewhere? I assume that you post from some sort of device that manipulates electrons around etchings on a slice of rock who's features can be measured in terms of 10's of atoms, that then wirelessly sends pulses of radiation that are picked up and sent through minuscule glass strands potentially halfway around the world, before the coming back the other way to display on a screen in front of me. The staggering amount of scientific research over centuries to make this possible is something you trust to work, but when the same scientific method is applied to studying the climate you consider it just "scientists putting their name to it". 

 

Of course science gets things wrong, and the wonder of it is that it self corrects over time. As is often pointed out there are a very small minority of climate scientists who don't believe humans play a part in the changing climate, but the vast majority who study this have come to the conclusion that humans have played a significant role. An analogy would be putting 100 people in a room with an animal. If 99 of those people looked at the animal, measured it, studied it as much as they could, and concluded that it was a dog, would the 1 person who stated it was a chicken have much influence on what you thought the animal to be?

 

And to your final point of banana trees in Leicester: So we have bananas in Leicester, great. Will the bananas that grow elsewhere still be growing? If it has warmed enough in Leicester for bananas to grow, presumably it has warmed by a similar amount elsewhere. The area of the earth that has a climate similar to Leicester is much smaller than the area that bananas currently grow. Can anything be grown there now? What has become of those regions that were habitable to the bananas, and those who farmed them? Where have those people gone? Now that bananas are flourishing in Leicester, where have crops that used to grow in Leicester gone?

 

I'd like to end with a question to you @yorkie1999. You believe humans haven't played a significant part in changing the climate. I wholeheartedly disagree, but respect your right to hold that view. Is there anything that could change your mind, or have you made your mind up once and for all?

My actual point is that what is happening to the earths climate is irreversable and i don't think we can do anything about it, i love for you to prove me wrong, so what do you suggest? 

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough and thank you for the clarification. One drives the other, which I believe to be pretty critical.

 

Honestly yorkie, we've talked about this topic at length before and personally I can't quite understand the lackadaisical and self centred attitude you have towards it all given the stakes in terms of money and lives, but so it goes.

If you'd read what i wrote you wouldn't need clarification.

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would ask that you don't go, your take is fair and correct and the person you're responding to is incorrect to assume that overall climate doesn't directly drive weather events.

I didn't say or assume that though,  I said that weather is a measure of the short term, climate is a measure of the long term.

24 minutes ago, davieG said:

Isn't the weather affected by the climate and aren't most peoples connection to all of this is by the weather? Surely when asking questions  like this topic it's not surprising people view it as the weather changing and would use that as their means of making a judgement.

 

At least that's what i did, I'm not convinced there's a need for anyone to be so pedantic about using the correct language with this question.

It's not being pedantic to use the correct language though , if we didn't, then no-one in the UK would believe there's any such thing as climate change due to how quickly our weather changes. Yesterday was a bit windy with summer showers and sun in between for instance, no different to 40 years ago, and probley no different to when the romans were here.

Out of curriosity i looked up what was the weather like during roman times, came across this.. Old Greta would have been mortified in ad107.

https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-100bc-to-499ad/

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

I think I made it clear that I think  it is mostly affected by human activity, but that there is also an argument that climate/weather has an element of cycling to it. I'm not an expert but I look back though history and it seems to me the weather/climate has varied over time without significant human interaction.

 

As for weather and climate being entirely different as an ignorant observer I'm not conversant with the various nuances of these relative definitions but I suspect you knew what I meant.

 

Weather is measured over a short period, climate is over a long period.

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Weather and climate are two entirely different things. There is nothing 'natural' about the climate chaos being unleashed, it is entirely of anthropogenic origin. 

 

Interestingly a similar poll was conducted on this forum some years ago. I find it staggering that there are people that there are still those that think that this is "just nature" and almost as questionable as those that think it isn't real. 

Not if you were a mayfly.

Cause the climate is changing, the earth doesn't stay the same forever,  20000 years ago we had glaciers in the penines and wales, where have they gone? Maybe they melted because the sabre tooth tigers weren't eating enough woolly mamoths or maybe it was because the climate changed. If humans are so egotistical that they believe they can change things, they're living on another planet, or rather they should do. Yes, the scientists will put names to things and study things to the nth degree cos that's what they do, and the climate people will want everyone to abandon material goods and live on broad beans we grow in the garden, but nothing will actually change. All i know is that the plants and trees have gone mental this year and if that's due to the climate changing, there's going to be plenty of food in the future, we may even see banana trees in Leicester.

2 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

The end goal is to make as much of the work force self employed as possible.That is where we are heading and if anyone hasn’t noticed then you haven’t been paying attention.

That way the bosses win both ways.You can still keep wages relatively high but also cut back on tax.Services will be paid for via insurances.It also has the added bonus of keeping the workforce divided.

 

 

Which was brilliant 30 years ago until the government worked out the amount of money they were losing out on. 2% ni on your net and still have the same benefits of someone paying 10% of your gross ain’t bad if you can get away with it.

2 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

We have a striker problem at the moment, Vardy still can't score and Daka.... same as before.

Our only hope is Nacho 🤷

 

Help me kelechi you’re our only hope.

thought the first half was great, quick passing, coady looks like he wants to run the game, second half I thought Rodgers was back.

1 hour ago, tom27111 said:

I met Top 

Where did you get your sunglasses from!

11 minutes ago, Tuna said:

No Barnes?

No, the Pikey’s burnt them down

Is this on lcfc web

Barnes really should stick around and see how things go under the new manager,  till January transfer at least. Okay, he could move to a prem side cos he's more than capable but then what? hope for another move to man city or arsenal or liverpool  so he can win something. You never know, we might end up back in the prem, under a manager that plays exciting football with young players and he may regret leaving. Dropping down to the championship could just be the reset we need.

One of my mate's well pissed off, reckons he was cov's best player last season.

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I wonder if there is a case for a review of media in this country 

 

perhaps it should not be possible for the same ownership to have newspapers  plus tv stations and or radio stations 

 

I assume that this applies to the bbc too 

 

their radio network may have to be replaced with a different management model separated from the tv 

Not really, people slagging off the sun and then doing exactly the same thing on this football forum and probably every other type of social media, even going to the extents of not naming names but giving hints because they’d read it on some other medium. I know one thing, if we'd had what we have now in the 70’s, Jimmy saville wouldn’t have got away with the stuff he got up to.

47 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Is it a sack-able offence, what he allegedly did?

Probably not, but I bet there’s something in all bbc contracts that says as an employee of the beeb you’re expected to hold the standards that are expected of a national institution. It’s time to get rid of the beeb though, just seems to go from one scandal to another.

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It's no different to any old fvcker doing the same on OnlyFans, people only going up in arms because it's a public figure. Ironically it should just be a private matter but the young person's parents put paid to that. 

 

Not to victimise the parents, but I suggest they look closer to home for issues within as opposed to pointing the finger at Huw Edwards. 

 

Where there’s blame there’s a claim.

6 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Would it have been easier to name him earlier to avoid such strong speculation and distress for all BBC presenters?

I think they would have all known before the story broke. Coming out on social media, like Lineker did, seemed more like they were taking the piss. It’s almost pantomime type stuff. Oh no it’s not!

25 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If the whole transaction has been above the law, he surely can't be held accountable for what the money has been spent on can he?

Depends whether or not  he knew the lad was a drug addict and that’s where the money was being spent. There’s something a bit odd about paying for porno pictures when it’s all free on the net. Why would someone do that? 

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Dan Walker reckons there'll be a relevation on the late news tonight, according to his Twitter.

 

Edit: Apologies; had read it again and he was referring to last nights' report and not laters'.

-

Reckon The Sun is either making some of the things up; or is holding key evidence back for some reason.

I suspect the bbc presenter had one of those as well...

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It seems the alleged victim and his mother are estranged, which maybe partly explains why they’re giving such differing accounts. My guess is that the lad put content up on OnlyFans, where he was discovered by the TV presenter. The TV presenter assumed the lad was 18 or over, as stipulated by the rules on OnlyFans, and offered him money for private content. The lad’s mother discovered all this and complained to the BBC, then approached the Sun when the BBC appeared not to be doing anything about it. The lad was horrified by this and regarded it as a gross invasion of his privacy by his mother, and begged the Sun not to publish. They ignored his request published anyway. 

I get the details, but, legal or not, it’s all a bit pervy ain’t it.

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It sounds very much like the mother went directly against her son’s wishes when she approached the Sun. I wonder about her motivation for doing that. 

You could also say what’s the motivation of the persons lawyer saying it’s rubbish, it’s a minefield.

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/gloucestershire-school-in-lockdown-as-emergency-services-called-to-the-scene-12918418

 

Unsurprising considering the profession has taken a media shoeing recently.

 

Terrible.

It's only a suspected stab wound, it could be anything...

1 hour ago, kingkisnorbo said:

All this “Anything less than (insert eye watering fee) is a disgrace” fluff has to stop. It doesn’t matter. If he wants out, get it done.

I think the whole point of having an asset, that you also invest in, is to make the most money from it.