No, George would love it. He likes anything that kills human beings - even if it means taking everything else with it.Originally Posted by Sir C
No, George would love it. He likes anything that kills human beings - even if it means taking everything else with it.
Extinction Rebellion Protester...
a protest isn't a protest until someone sprays "Frack Off" on a government building
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...mate-breakdown
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
The trouble with these chaps is that they're perpetually crying wolf and fail to realise they lose credibility as a consequence. They just come off as an old-fashioned millennial domesday cult who predict the end of the world because - deep down - that's what they actually want to happen.Extinction Rebellion Protester...
a protest isn't a protest until someone sprays "Frack Off" on a government building
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...mate-breakdown
The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.But the Earth’s systems are highly complex, and complex systems do not respond to pressure in linear ways. When these systems interact (because the world’s atmosphere, oceans, land surface and lifeforms do not sit placidly within the boxes that make study more convenient), their reactions to change become highly unpredictable.
Small perturbations can ramify wildly. Tipping points are likely to remain invisible until we have passed them. We could see changes of state so abrupt and profound that no continuity can be safely assumed.
My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?
I’m interested in this question as well, h, so thank God you’re here to clarify it for me. Can you just tell me how many million tons of CO2 there should be in the atmosphere? How many million tons has human activity added? Could you express this additional amount as a percentage of the ideal? What does such an additional quantity of CO2 do to the atmosphere? Ha e there been occasions in the past when ’extra’ CO2 occurred naturally in the atmosphere? If so, how does that event compare with this event in terms of percentage of the ideal? I’m keen to hear all of your expertise, please go ahead.
Of course, one of the major reasons for an increase in CO2 in the atmos is that there are way too many facking humans on the Earth.
Sort that one out, Lefties...
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
If we could persuade naive Africans, wiley Chinamen and, well, Indians, to stop breeding like fúcking rabbits, we'd all be better off.
yer mum
. . . . . . . .
The short answer is if the dinosaurs had paid tax they'd still be here today. CO2 isn't a problem if it's taxed correctly.
'Seems that I was busy doing something close to nothing
But different than the day before'
'Met a dwarf that was no good, dressed like Little Red Riding Hood'
'Now you're unemployed, all non-void
Walkin' round like you're Pretty Boy Floyd'
As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote