SpacedX

What a ridiculous straw man logical fallacy. Read my post again. At no stage have I said anything of the sort. What I am particularly opposed to however is an opportunistic ex-cab driving convicted felon, cult member, stalker, proven liar, fraud and renowned online grifter that managed to get himself ostracised from the advertisement making industry, with a huge grudge to bear and chip on his shoulder and zero relevant expertise, telling people like you what to think about a subject that by your own admission, you have no understanding or knowledge of whatsoever. Hilarious since the USA now has a President in office that is threatening the federally issued licenses of television broadcast outlets that displeased him. The right to free speech is not absolute and certain types of speech can be restricted, such as obscenity, defamation, incitement to violence, and threats. Free speech is the noose by which people hang themselves. It should be used responsibly and not abused. Blatant disinformation which is Sibrel's stock in trade should be summarily and systematically challenged and exposed. Conspiracy theorists are crooks, not just idiots. petty crooks, true, but part of their business model is to create an environment of distrust of science and rational thought, and refusal to ever measure anything. and that is a serious problem for society. Besides, they spread so much malice that it's a good idea to pound them flat while they are small. Earlier today, I politely urged you to summon even just a thread of humility in respect of your comment relating to the Van Allen Belts, ask yourself a series of questions, reflect and exercise some self awareness. You have completely ignored and disregarded that bludgeoning on with more regurgitated online nonsense about Stanley Kubrick and now an utterly bizarre reply about freedom of speech. The renowned Italian scholar and semiologist Umberto Eco once said: “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

There has been an error in reporting here. We are actually lining up Würzburger Kickers winger, 49 year old, Patrick Zimmer.

I agree. This is as much a comical thread and my post wasn't intended to be taken that seriously.

I wasn't advocating instant coffee, just that, from a selfish perspective, the reversion to it would make my life easier when queueing in a café

I was of course being facetious - the thread lends itself to such - but I am inclined to agree. Very well put. I guess this is what I am referring to. Why are people prepared to queue up for and pay exorbitant prices to satisfy their dependence on this stodge? But then why are our highstreets flooded with vape shops sourcing cheap product from some dodgy exporter in provincial China?

Indeed - and like I said, I replenish my own bottle which I forgot to bring.

And almost invariably, with hilarious results...

Coffee. Can't stand the stuff and the nation's apparent obsession with it, dependence on it and queueing for it. Just spent twenty minutes waiting to be served at a campus café because I wanted a bottle of water. I usually replenish my own everyday but forgot to bring it. The complexity of the damn orders and the time it takes to prepare these extortionate up the arse Espressos, Oat lattes, Cappuccinos, Americanos, Flat Whites, Macchiatos, Mochas, Affogatos, Ristrettos, Cortados...Just keep a ****ing tub of Douwe Egberts in your drawer and get out of my way. My world was a simpler and easier place when the dumb British public were easily satisfied and sated by a cup of Mellow Birds, Gold Blend - or what was that one that Gareth Hunt used to advertise? - Nescafe? Forget religion, Caffeine is the contemporary opiate of the masses.

Interested to know what you define as "climate activist"? Are you also including those who are concerned about the rapidity of climate change?

We've discussed this before Mac - I lack the reserves of patience, tact and diplomacy that you exude when it comes to this subject. That is why I would love to see you embark on a career in scientific communication.

Yet you felt the need to pass comment on the Van Allen Radiation belts of which you clearly have no knowledge of whatsoever. And yet astonishingly you just claimed this... Covid vaccinations prevented 14·4 million 95% credible interval deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8 2021. Of these, 0.053% had an adverse reaction. In the EU alone, those that suffered a fatal reaction to vaccination represents 0.52% of the 2,169,191that died of coronavirus. Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 25 deaths per million in road accidents per year in the UK. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven?

Says that...then this - Because social media said so? Continuous footage of 1/6th gravity and a vacuum would have been a technical impossibility whilst Kubrick would never have filmed in slow scan (ten frames a second). Stanley Kubrick was not responsible for the special effects in his films and if you have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for which Douglas Trumbull did a wonderful job, the limitations are nonetheless immediately obvious. Allied to the fact that if you knew anything about Kubrick himself, the you'd understand that the stubborn nature of the man would have prevented him from compromising his entire career as a filmmaker in addition to his artistic integrity. That and the fact that his projects and whereabouts are fully accountable during the entire Apollo Programme. The closest that Stanley Kubrick ever got to NASA was for the making of 'Barry Lyndon' in which he had scoured trade journals on optics to find a lens that could capture interior night scenes lit by only candlelight. He read about that Planar 50mm f/0.7 that was designed for NASA to capture the far side of the moon and purchased 3 of them from Carl Zeiss. There was no contact between Kubrick and NASA involved in the acquisition of the lenses. This has to be one of the most staggering stupid, ludicrous conspiratorial claims on the entire internet - and astonishingly, in spite of your claimed suspicion, you have evidently allowed yourself to be completely hoodwinked by it.

Why? Not in the slightest. The USA stopped going to the moon because in the midst of an expensive foreign war, growing public apathy and disquiet, a lack of political will and the looming OPEC crisis, Congress prematurely withdrew the funding in 1972. They saw little benefit in continuing to plough in what had been at its peak, 4% of the annual federal budget into continuation of something that had already been achieved. The Apollo Programme was cancelled meaning that the manufacturing plants, the processes, the bespoke tooling, the expertise was either retired or moved on, whilst production of the heavy lift capability ceased and no one build a replacement for the Saturn V after the production cycle had not been renewed in 1970. Powerful lobbying for the folly of the Space Shuttle Programme shifted the emphasis upon low Earth orbit and the subsequent construction of the ISS meant that space exploration became the preserve of much cheaper unmanned probes and landers that did not require a heavy lift rocket. The old technology of Apollo has become obsolete and defunct. Project Artemis was not approved until as recently as 2018. Meanwhile the Soviet moon landing programme stuttered from the off and was doomed from the onset due to a budget a fraction that of Apollo, the consistent failure of the N1 rocket and arguably, the untimely death of Sergei Korolev. India and China have lagged behind the US and Russia for decades - China directing resources into the construction of Tiangong, whilst in terms of going to the moon, both nations have pursued the cheaper option of impacts, together with unmanned probes and landers. Then why comment? I'm genuinely interested in why you would make a statement based upon what conspiracy theorists have told you to think about a subject you clearly have zero knowledge of whatsoever? Therein lies everything that's wrong with belief in conspiracy theories.You encapsulate it in a sentence. Firstly, they are belts, in the plural, due to the fact that there are two, plus a third that is transitory. Secondly, if you have integrity and humility, I'd like you to genuinely ask yourself the following questions: 1/ How much do I genuinely know about the Van Allen Belts? - their shape extent and distribution? Energies and intensity? Type of radiation? 2/ What do I actually understand by alpha and beta particle radiation and shielding against it? 3/ What have I understood about the actual structure of the Command Module and the materials that it was fashioned from? 4/ What have I learnt about the trajectories flown by each of the Apollo missions and their passage through the belts? 5/ What do I know about what James Van Allen himself, (and his soviet counterpart Sergei Vernov) had to say about the belts and the Apollo missions? 6/ Why do I think that I know better than them? 7/ Compared to the 68 minute transit of the Apollo missions, how long did last year's Polaris Dawn mission spend in the more dangerous inner belt and how long was the hatch open for? 8/ What have I done to challenge my preconceptions and the claims made by online conspiracy theorists in relation to the VABs? If the answer to these questions is nothing or "I don't know" then you have one additional question to ask of yourself - why did I feel the need to comment in the first place? Of course governments lie, deceive and conspire. No one in their right mind would suggest otherwise. But simply because they do that does not then logically follow that claims of faked moon landings or any random conspiracy theory of one's arbitrary choosing, devising or consequence of personal bias/agenda should automatically be assumed to be true. A lazy syllogistic logical fallacy. And meanwhile the online conspiracy theory that you refer to is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Are you sure about that? You say you have a "suspicious nature". It never ceased to amuse me how conspiracy believers suspend this claimed scepticism when it comes to accommodating the outright lies and deception that are the stock in trade of con artists such as Bart Sibrel. These people harvest gullibility, ignorance and personal incredulity for their own personal gain. Surely you don't wish to place yourself in that target market?

Yes but...

Surely not? You don't say? And there was me all along thinking that it was an advanced scouting party from the 10th Plejaren Battlefleet under the direction of General Azlok commander of the 2nd Galactic Quadrant returning to mutilate cattle and abduct rednecks from trailer parks in Arkansas.

Trump is a huge admirer of William McKinley and pledges the deliver the second 'gilded age' - the protectionist and imperialist model which will be extolled by his return to office. As an anti-establishment figure and promoter of Native American displacement he also appears to be Trump's role model. History tells us that "The Gilded Age" was actually a fake golden age, with the shine hiding the misery. It was a time of immense fortunes and the growth of industrial empires, but accompanied by widespread political corruption, violent social strife, segregation in the South and a subservient press. Karl Marx is often credited with saying, “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”. Indeed.

It's called Holy Mackerel and it was written by Brian Bennett the drummer in The Shadows. He also wrote another that you'd definitely recognise as a keen golfer...

Oh for the days of Rugby Special and Nigel Starmer-Smith. (So sad that he is now in a nursing home for dementia).

Sounds more like a construct to me. Apologies, I'm not with you. As explained, the study design is justified and defended. The conscious choices made by the researcher to narrow the scope of their study and define its boundaries, making it more manageable and focused are known in research as delimitations. It is not "my paper". The lead author and PI is Pierre Masselot (er.al) a a statistician and environmental epidemiologist whose research agenda/interests examines the association between various environmental exposure and human health. It is published in 'Nature Medicine' a Q1/four star journal with an exceptionally high impact factor and third in the ranking of primary research journals. Due to its reputation, Nature has a very stringent peer-review process, ensuring only exceptional rigorous and robust research is accepted. On the contrary, the direction and aims and objectives of the paper are abundantly clear - to explore how the balance between increased heat-related and decreased cold-related mortality would change with various degrees of adaptation to heat and address a question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related death. It recommends that further research is needed to focus on the understanding of the interplay between local factors and vulnerability to temperature and on how to quantitatively integrate it into projections of temperature-related mortality. No I didn't - and I would argue that this too is a very valid point although not a stand alone panacea to the climate change crisis which requires a range of solutions, technologies, socio-political and socio-economic perspectives and significant political and public will. Eh? I know that. Again you are making unfounded assumptions about me. Why on Earth would I "flip my lid"? I value and appreciate your constructive input here and I have endeavoured to address and answer your questions and counterpoints to the best of my ability. Not at all. Practical solutions are as important as theoretical and even hypothetical studies. I value and recognise the worth of both. However, I think, with respect, you need to read the paper again with appreciation to its defined objectives with particular attention to its strengths, purpose, delimitations and objectives. Thanks again for your input.

Don't be. That is purely a figment of your imagination (or possibly projection?) I am ok too thanks. Nothing to do with "what I think". The experimental design/methodology is clearly articulated in the paper in which the rationalisation of three SSPs is clearly defined together with the four different heat adaptation scenarios. within the context of the study. A very potent question and observation. Thank you. As part of its limitations, the authors acknowledge that the work is limited in terms of its treatment of adaptation and attenuation. Scenarios were defined as general adaptation without factoring geographical differences in the level of risk attenuation and without reference to specific drivers of adaptation or the variables governing this. On an urban scale, there is potential for solar radiation management through albedo modification, alongside the addition of green spaces and waterways to mitigate against the rising urban heat island effect. To make buildings more resistant to heat-related deaths, key strategies include incorporating passive design elements such as adequate shading, good ventilation, high-performance windows, and strategic building orientation, alongside active cooling systems like efficient air conditioning when necessary, whilst considering urban design elements that I mentioned such as green spaces and tree canopies to mitigate outdoor temperatures. This costs time and money. On of our PGRs is currently basing their doctoral thesis upon how to adapt our ageing UK schools and classrooms to be more resistant to heat-related illness. Also, awareness and advocacy can to an extent guard against heat-related illness by educating and informing the public about the risks of extreme heat, promoting preventative behaviours such as staying hydrated, seeking cool environments, and checking on vulnerable populations, in so doing, empowering individuals to take proactive measures to protect their health during hot weather. At the global scale together with the phasing out of fossil fuel dependence, GGR/DAC is likely to be the most effective geoengineering strategy but the high costs and investment associated with this eludes developing nations. However, this particular study aims to address a major question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related deaths, and about the role of adaptation in future temperature-related health impacts - to dispel theories that climate change might be a net lifesaver in Europe by reducing the number of people dying from cold. Bluntly put, the increase in hot weather will kill more people than the decrease in cold weather will save. Thank you for your reply.

What a frankly bizarre response. Seriously, are you ok? Blimey, I'd forgotten about him. Whenever someone challenged his claims with evidence, as opposed to a rebuttal he's simply place a laughing emoji beneath. That's all I'm referring to. Curious as to why people feel the need to do it. Back on topic, I was reading this paper today suggesting that in the most extreme scenario, climate change rising temperatures threaten to kill millions of European urban dwellers by 2099. Without “stringent” efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change would lead to 2.3mn additional temperature-related deaths, mostly in southern European cities such as Athens, Madrid and Rome. But those fatalities could be cut by at least two-thirds if preventive measures were taken. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2

On the contrary, the uptight one is clearly you. I suggest that we return to the topic of the thread though in the interest of ourselves and all concerned.

And yet we've known about both for decades. The failure to act for so long is inexcusable.

Your entire comment was a false premise and actually, a strawman fallacy. No you assumed that this was getting under my skin, That said, I find the notion of placing a laughing emoji under a post to discredit it not only in itself disparaging, but yes, rather dumb. And no, I did not call him that, I suggested that it made him look rather dumb. My question remains, what was it accomplishing? No intention of any hostility but there was really no need for you to comment was there? But then, that's never stopped you before. I'm particularly relaxed tonight. Winning away at Spurs imbues me with a inner warmth and well being - a comforting zen like glow and oneness with the universe. Perhaps you should follow his lead? And when you inevitably do post again instead of perhaps refraining from commenting, as opposed to engaging you in discourse, when I place a laughing emoji beneath it, do appreciate that it's actually very "endearing". (fumbles for an emoji)

Agree; it's a football forum and of little consequence in spite of the fact it can be regarded as a microcosm of popular belief and perception. On this topic though Mac, as you are well aware "humorous denial" could result in nature having the last laugh, whilst a laughing emoji in response to a post is the last refuge of the witless and the vacuous