SpacedX

There is nothing disparaging and disrespectful about my observation at all, and it was a genuine question. In fact I'd contend that placing a laughing emoji beneath a post whilst declining to comment is precisely the latter..."disparaging and disrespectful" and there are quite a few members that are prone to it. @Phil Bowman is a sharp contributor to this forum and posts when he has something pertinent or worthwhile to say - instead of feeling the need to comment on absolutely bloody everything such as, it has to be said, yourself.

@Posthorn54 Is there any particular reason why you feel to need to place laughing emojis under member's posts on this thread? Perhaps you have something worthwhile to say or something constructive to bring in the way of refutation? It makes you look rather dumb.

Christ, it's no different to attempting to reason with @Otis or @Legend_in_blue

Actually, no. I'm sure there were others that I wasn't aware of, but it really wasn't the prevailing view given our outstanding form.

Given the form that we finished the previous season in, most of them predicted mid-table. Percy was lampooned for suggesting that the only thing we'd come out with was the wooden spoon.

Oddly most seem to have forgotten or are completely oblivious to the fact that John Percy predicted prior to the 2015/16 season, that we would not only be relegated, but finish bottom of the table.

And culled from the June 1966 edition - "whenever they appeared on the balcony before cheering crowds in Australia, the boys couldn't help giving Hitler-type salutes."

Can't stand the bloody things. Plus the fact that many of the pricks that ride these infernal contraptions insist on dressing like ninjas for some unfathomable reason.

A remarkable work designed by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading is about to be displayed in the New York Museum of Modern Art as part of an exhibition about how design has been an agent of change. Hawkins' contribution is called Climate Stripes and is deceptively simple. It employs coloured stripes to illustrate how the average temperature of the Earth has warmed each year over the past 175 years recounting the change purely by colours with shades of blue representing the cooler years and reds indicating the warming. The result is a stark reminder of the rapidity of climate change. Apparently he stripes have already had to be updated prior to being exhibited with a new darker shade of red to reflect the extreme heat in 2023, followed by the record global average of 2024 - the warmest year ever recorded. That is the year in which the the Earth's average temperature surpassed the 1.5°C warming level over a year for the first time and was also the benchmark temperature identified in the 2015 Paris agreement which the United States have now shunned. 'Climate Stripes' has been acclaimed throughout the world ad the stripes have been adapted for individual continents, countries and cities. To generate the colours, Hawkins paid homage to the work of climate science and over a billion temperature readings all condensed into and comprising the differing shades. A very simple concept, but highly involved in preparation and execution. As a graphic representation of the pace of climate change, Climate Stripes has achieved outstanding global success in raising awareness and recognition of the crisis . Now it aims to achieve its ultimate aim in helping to avert it and send a message to the growing ambivalence Stateside.

And speaking of which, Garth Hudson - the sole remaining founder member of The Band passed away on the 21st. (Although they were The Hawks at this point).

That the emphasis and reliance upon fossil fuels is likely to significantly change within the next few years and as pointed out to you, the cherry picked snapshot is not indicative of the big picture. There are already many months in which zero-carbon sources produced more energy than fossil-fuels. It simply tells you that the UK’s energy could be 100% green by the end of 2030, because we actually do have the capability and technology to replace the 1,297 TWh of non-renewable energy the UK uses. Do I think that this is realistic? no, of course not, it would require huge investment, political will, private sector investment and the assurance that the UK’s 28 million households are availed with the necessary technology to harness this green energy, partially by stopping high costs from preventing people from getting on board. However, the UK will continue to make significant inroads towards the realisation of a net zero strategy, which I am confident will be achievable by 2050 and in the meantime this will spell a growing decreased dependence upon carbon sources. I also want to emphasis that 2050 is likely too late. We don't have that much time. No one is claiming that it is "black and white". Remember, the purpose of a lockdown is to contain spread. Your claim that "lockdowns" don't work was absolutely incorrect. What you have also demonstrated however is that you still, years later, fail to understand cherry picking and confirmation bias in addition to opinion pieces masquerading as fact."Peer reviewed academic study"? Let me help you here - the IEA is the diametric opposite of the "think tank" that it purports to be and recently lost a lost a two-year legal battle over allegations that it is a “hard-right lobby group”. It is nothing more than an alt right lobbying machine. Given that you are clearly still easily bamboozled and susceptible such sources, I would as you sensibly suggested, be more than happy for you to take this over to the Covid thread and address each of the links that you have provided. You are absolutely correct that we shouldn't derail this thread.

So you missed the entire point of the data whilst proceeding to post a link to the Daily Express? Perhaps that explains why several years ago you brazenly proclaimed, contrary to the entire body of epidemiological evidence, that it has been scientifically proven that lockdowns during highly contagious viral epidemics "don't work"?

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/uk-energy-could-be-green-by-2030#:~:text=Renewables are the cheapest way,completely green energy by 2030.

The ascent (and capture) footage was the best yet - magnificent. Shame about the "upper-stage anomaly". The debris falling back to Earth was spectacular at least. SpaceX's production cadence is absolutely nuts. They have a 'rocket garden' consisting of a "stable of hardware" and are nearing completion of the 1 million sq.ft star factory that will facilitate the manufacture of hundreds of boosters and ships a year. The problem that resulted in the destruction of Starship appears to be a recurrent one and a repeat of an issue last observed in March 2024, so it will be eradicated. Looking forward to Flight 8.

Close. The one on the right.

I can assure you that you are wrong on one count.

You may well have hit on why I didn't genius

That makes it all the clearer then.

If you read my post again, you'll hopefully realise that I was being sarcastic, and that I am in full agreement with you. And yes. you should absolutely ask how they know this and you were correct to do so.

Does it matter? It's the internet and it's Foxes Talk, when was substantiation ever important?...people are already all over it as a supposed statement of fact.

Great contributor although, like you, I found some of his worldviews were questionable and to cock. Somewhat of a pedant too. Once had a very protracted debate over the origin and application of the term 'jingoism'. He could be very sage like on occasions and his erudition was manifest. In spite of this, I bet he wouldn't know who, what was it?, Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury are either.

I try not to contribute to threads on subjects that I have absolutely no idea about unless it involves football. However, on this occasion I'm contributing purely because I'm pleased to say, I have absolutely no idea who these people are.

They couldn't continue to call themselves Jefferson Starship, since the last remaining founder member of Jefferson Airplane Paul Kantner took legal action over using the name when he left the band in 1984. So you could contend they became irrelevant then despite their highly irritating hit single the following year.