# A happy story for once.....



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Everyone say "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24223721


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Wow! That. Is bloody fantastic!


----------



## davelincs (Jan 1, 2010)

Lovely


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)




----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Meh, panda's are crap, they dont seem to want to do anything to save themselves, there are a lot more animals out there that do more for the environment that people ignore that should have a higher priority than some cuddly lazy assed bear thing..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> Meh, panda's are crap, they dont seem to want to do anything to save themselves


What exactly did you expect them to do to 'save themselves' from poachers and a disappearing habitat?? Arm themselves and dig in?


Trig said:


> there are a lot more animals out there that do more for the environment


Yeah, if they want us to stop killing them and encroaching on their habitat, they should get out there and do some work for the environment. They complain about near extinction, but happily cruise around in their gas-guzzling cars. Has anyone ever seen a panda driving a hybrid? No. Says a lot, that does.


Trig said:


> that people ignore that should have a higher priority than some cuddly lazy assed bear thing..


If you look at the statements from conservationists about letting pandas die off (most famously, Chris Packham with his entertaining "I'd eat the last panda" quote) they don't claim it's the pandas fault for not 'saving themselves'. They just point out that there's not enough habitat left (because of humans) to support a large population of pandas, so money spent on trying to breed and protect them is effectively wasted.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

I'm with Mr Packham on this one.

But not re the pooh!


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Why on earth would anyone advocate letting such a fantastic creature as a Panda become extinct? We're responsible for their disappearing habitat and for their decline, so we should be responsible for making sure that future generations can still see them, even if it is only in zoos.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i would think that there may be be a bit of room for discusion there, on the ethics of maintaining a species if it is only going to be kept in a cage / prison,, personally i would be more in favour of corraling and imprisoning the log fellers and palm oil planters / farmers who are destroying the habbitats of these animals.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

roddy said:


> i would think that there may be be a bit of room for discusion there, on the ethics of maintaining a species if it is only going to be kept in a cage / prison,, personally i would be more in favour of corraling and imprisoning the log fellers and palm oil planters / farmers who are destroying the habbitats of these animals.


I do see that argument and it's up to us to provide proper spacious environments - zoos for the most part are improving dramatically in that respect. Most large zoos nowadays have the accent on conservation and breeding of endangered species as their first priority. It's not just Pandas, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of threatened species which will disappear unless we do something about it - I just don't believe we should stand by and watch that happen.It will be a sad old world if future generations can only look at pictures of Pandas or Tigers in books, along with the Dodos and Dinosaurs.

As for the logging and the rest of it, as a species, it's us who are a blight on the planet.


----------



## Nyxx (May 1, 2012)

igotone said:


> As for the logging and the rest of it, as a species, it's us who are a blight on the planet.


We would do the world a big favour if we all dropped dead, as a race we are a rampant malignant cancer to the Earth. Given population growth we are well on course to implode in around 80-100 years. Unless we blow ourselvers up and everything else before then :roll:

As for _"there are a lot more animals out there that do more for the environment"_ hhmm we don't come to high on that list do we.


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Anyone else thinking the Matrix cancer talk that Smith has with Morpheus :lol:

We should take more care of the planet but I dont think for one second that all this nature dying global warming crap is all our fault.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Trig said:


> Anyone else thinking the Matrix cancer talk that Smith has with Morpheus :lol:
> 
> We should take more care of the planet but I don't think for one second that all this nature dying global warming crap is all our fault.


An ice age every twenty thousand years? There's evidence for that.


----------



## Nilesong (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, that escalated quickly...

I just remember, back in the early 70's queuing up with hundreds of other 7-12 year old's waiting for Chi-Chi to appear at London Zoo...

And did he?

No.

Little F.....! :x


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Skeee said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else thinking the Matrix cancer talk that Smith has with Morpheus :lol:
> ...


Global Warming Green Peace types go on about how we've got all this data (hundreds of years worth) but how "much" is that in relation to how long the planet as been here, in short, feck all.

We've got a planet that doesnt have a perfectly uniform orbit around the Sun.
We have a Sun that has hot and cold spells.
We have a planet that's rotation varies.
We have a moon that doesnt have a perfect orbit around the planet.
We have a moon that is slowly drifting away from the planet.

How can anyone, given the set of facts we have above say that the data we have proves anything when it comes to Global warming.

Now dont get me wrong I'm not saying that we are blameless, we burn, destroy and kill shit left right and center but Global Warming, bite me.. If anything its Climate Change, partially down to us but a damned sight more of it is due to the above facts.
We wont kill the planet, this planet will be here for millions upon millions of years after we have either left for other planets or turned to dust or we have some sort of ELE that wipes us all out.

Aaaanyways, Panda's, cute yes, worth saving, nah..


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Trig said:


> Aaaanyways, Panda's, cute yes, worth saving, nah..


Without the Panda you would never get this... see how wrong you are

Panda's rock


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yep,, i am with the pandas 8)


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> How can anyone, given the set of facts we have above say that the data we have proves anything when it comes to Global warming.


What always amazes me about people who put this sort of argument forward (and it's a common theme on car forums as people feel they need to defend their love of something that is potentially damaging the planet) is that they have no idea what data is out there and no idea what evidence scientists actually have. If you're going to disagree with almost every scientist on the planet who's thrown their hat into this debate, shouldn't you have a little bit more than "well I don't agree" to back you up?

That is the unfortunate truth of the situation. Man made climate change isn't a marginal or even vaguely controversial theory in scientific circles. Scientists who disagree with it are few and far between, and that kind of consensus is enough to persuade me.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> yep,, i am with the pandas 8)


I knew your support could easily be bought :wink:

Lovely Panda don't you just want to pet it and give it a little rub.... I will get my coat


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

More Panda pics please James. 

Have to be quick!


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Skeee said:


> More Panda pics please James.
> 
> Have to be quick!


Ok one more..... fill ya boots dirty monkey :wink:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Really james!
That's the pic you chose? :roll:

Not this one.


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Trig said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone, given the set of facts we have above say that the data we have proves anything when it comes to Global warming.
> ...


Its nothing to do with my love of driving my car, I'd love a Tesla roadster or one of the prototype Evo's from a few years back with electric motors in the wheels...:lol:
If you want to go with scientists, then that's fine, I'm not going to, or nor do I see the need to argue with you about your thoughts on the matter.
Bottom line is the planet has been here for billions of years, we don't have anywhere near a decent amount of info to actually predict global, or in fact solar system based changes, we could have a million years worth of data but in the grand age of the planet argument its still nowhere near enough to predict things.
I didn't say we weren't damaging the planet, my point was the planet will be here long after we have gone, regardless of what we do, to suggest anything else, scientific "fact" or not is just another example of man's arrogance and self importance.
Scientists, are they the people that a few hundred years ago thought the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe?

Bottom line is man is a cunt in general, we should all take more care of eachother, the planet and everything else on it, but we dont, we can argue as much as we like but in the grand scheme of things non of us matter and when we are gone, nobody will miss us, give it a million years and nature will have taken back over and any passing aliens wont even know we were here...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Sorry, but at the end of the day, that argument is plain bonkers. You're basically saying, "Scientists only have a relatively small amount of evidence to work with, so I can't trust their conclusion. Therefore I'll trust my own conclusion which is based on absolutely no evidence at all".

If evidence is important to you (and you claim it is) then the scientists have more of it than anyone else.


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Either your not reading what I am saying or you are really missing the point I am trying to make, I'll break it down.

The planet is billions of years old, it will be here after we have gone, regardless of what we do.
Yes?

The evidence we have while it might be spread over hundreds of years, doesn't even count for 1% of the amount of time the planet as been here so we cant form an accurate opinion of what damage, long term we are doing.
Yes?

We know that the planet has hot and cold spells, it was doing them before we were here, and will carry on doing them after we have gone.
Yes?

So, my point is, while we are causing issues as far as the planet and climate goes, nothing we do will stop things from happening on a global level and whatever damage we do wont make much of a mess in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

the planet may still be here long after we have poluted it beyond a level which can sustain life , but that is no reason to behave like lemings


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> Either your not reading what I am saying or you are really missing the point I am trying to make, I'll break it down.
> 
> The planet is billions of years old, it will be here after we have gone, regardless of what we do.
> Yes?


No. Technically we could do something in the future that would destroy the planet, although this is unlikely and I'm not sure this is relevant anyway, so let's move on.


Trig said:


> The evidence we have while it might be spread over hundreds of years, doesn't even count for 1% of the amount of time the planet as been here so we cant form an accurate opinion of what damage, long term we are doing.
> Yes?


No. Evidence of the impact of our behaviour is obviously limited to the length of human existence, but this is judged in the context of our extensive knowledge of the planets climate over billions of years before humans appeared. Regardless, scientists are quite happy to admit when they don't know something or when the evidence is insufficient, so if they say the evidence is sufficient to back up their theory and thousands of other scientist across the globe have reviewed the evidence and said they concur, only a fool would stand there and say "well I don't believe you", despite having no scientific knowledge of the subject. You have no problem believing in gravity, despite it just being a scientific theory with no real conclusive understanding of how it works.


Trig said:


> We know that the planet has hot and cold spells, it was doing them before we were here, and will carry on doing them after we have gone.
> Yes?


Yes, it will. But that doesn't mean we can't cause them, and it doesn't mean we can't make them worse than they would be were we not here.


Trig said:


> So, my point is, while we are causing issues as far as the planet and climate goes, nothing we do will stop things from happening on a global level and whatever damage we do wont make much of a mess in the grand scheme of things.


So now you accept we're causing issues with the climate? Earlier you were saying there can't be enough evidence to show that. And are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter how much damage we cause because a few thousand years after the human race dies off it'll all be back to normal?? Do you think the only reason we should worry about the environment is because we want to leave the place looking tidy when we check out?


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

> So now you accept we're causing issues with the climate? Earlier you were saying there can't be enough evidence to show that. And are you seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter how much damage we cause because a few thousand years after the human race dies off it'll all be back to normal?? Do you think the only reason we should worry about the environment is because we want to leave the place looking tidy when we check out?


No, either I miss typed or you misunderstood, what I meant is that the climate changes and whatever we do wont change the fact it changes, go back to the start of people starting to realise that we were impacting the climate, there has always been people trying to cause panic, we're all still here and the planets not dead.
And no, I didn't say the only reason we should be worried is because we want to leave the place tidy when we turn the lights out, in fact I'm pretty sure that I said something along the lines of we should all take more care of eachother and the planet etc.
If you intend to continue the conversation feel free to actually read all of my comments and give me the courtesy of quoting me in context rather than picking and choosing which bits you want to focus on. If you want I can post shorter comments to make that easier for you..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> No, either I miss typed or you misunderstood, what I meant is that the climate changes and whatever we do wont change the fact it changes, go back to the start of people starting to realise that we were impacting the climate, there has always been people trying to cause panic, we're all still here and the planets not dead.
> And no, I didn't say the only reason we should be worried is because we want to leave the place tidy when we turn the lights out, in fact I'm pretty sure that I said something along the lines of we should all take more care of eachother and the planet etc.
> If you intend to continue the conversation feel free to actually read all of my comments and give me the courtesy of quoting me in context rather than picking and choosing which bits you want to focus on. If you want I can post shorter comments to make that easier for you..


I've quoted you in full and answered each point individually. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued as choosing the bits I want to focus on.

If I'm misunderstanding you, I think that's because you're not presenting a very cohesive argument. You say that there's not enough data to show that humans have affected the climate, but then you say that climate change is partially down to us. These are contradictory statements.

No one has ever claimed that humans control the climate. It has cycles of it's own and this is reasonably well understood. But we're talking about climate *change*, as in a deviation from the norm. The temperature in winter is, on average, colder than the temperature in summer. That's not climate change, that's just climate. Change is when something occurs outside the natural cycles and that's where we come in.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

roddy said:


> the planet may still be here long after we have poluted it beyond a level which can sustain life , but that is no reason to behave like lemings


This is actually impossible for us to do, in the history of the earth there has been natural disasters that have wiped out over 99.% of all life, these meteorite impacts are more destructive in one second than man could ever do, even if we deliberately tried. Bacteria have been found miles under the earths surface that can survive even the most serious impacts. These would evolve and repopulate the earth with life.

Where man no doubt can cause environmental damage, the natural damage nature can and does do on a regular basis dwarfs it. This is however no excuse for what we do, but on a grand scale the earth will be fine.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i admire you optimisim,,, but do not share it...


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life ... index.html

As you can see, global warming is both not new and probably man's fault, well not all of It. 

And as I said even the worst of man's destruction pales to this sort of environmental event.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

brian1978 said:


> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/end-permian-mass-extinction/index.html
> 
> As you can see, global warming is both not new and probably man's fault, well not all of It.
> 
> And as I said even the worst of man's destruction pales to this sort of environmental event.


well , not wanting to be argumentative ( :wink: ) aparently the UN are bringing out a report tomorrow stating that global warming is not as big a problem as we have been led to believe ..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> well , not wanting to be argumentative ( :wink: ) aparently the UN are bringing out a report tomorrow stating that global warming is not as big a problem as we have been led to believe ..


The report is going to say that global warming has slowed down recently, not that it's not as big a problem. In fact a lot of the report will explain why it's a bigger problem than we thought.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

roddy said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/end-permian-mass-extinction/index.html
> ...


I'm not surprised, the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, climate change, rising sea levels. All bollocks. But the amount of cash the powers that be have extracted from us, through "green" taxes using these as justification is scandalous.

Remember the projected maps of London under the sea, entire tropical islands gone under 80feet of rising seas, I think the last projection for 100 years of sea level is about 2.5-6ft not much more than the natural projection of 1.25 -4ft if man had never existed, we are talking about all's man's wrong doings accelerating natural sea level raising by about 50 years. A millionth of a blink in the eye in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, climate change, rising sea levels. All bollocks.


You should send your findings in to the IPCC...


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, climate change, rising sea levels. All bollocks.
> ...


It's not my findings, the projected sea level rise 15 years ago was 20-80 feet it's now 2.5-6 feet. The if humans never existed rise was 1.5-4 ft. Knee jerk science was to blame the media didn't help also.

Why have we not heard about the "hole in the ozone layer" (which was most probably a natural phenomena) in years?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > brian1978 said:
> ...


I meant your suggestion that the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, climate change and rising sea levels were *all* bollocks. I don't know where your 1998 prediction came from though, as all the articles I've read recently have stated that the sea is rising faster than originally predicted. 20-80ft sounds ridiculous - like something you'd get in the sensationalist press.

As for the hole in the ozone layer, the fact that you've not heard about it in years is due to the press moving on to whatever else will help them sell papers. The hole is still there. Do some research.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Spandex said:


> Do some research.


Brian reads The Sun everyday that always tells the truth :wink:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

The IPPC report squarely puts the blame on humanity for over 50% of global warming since 1950.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

brian1978 said:


> Where man no doubt can cause environmental damage, the natural damage nature can and does do on a regular basis dwarfs it. This is however no excuse for what we do, but on a grand scale the earth will be fine.


Thats a short version of what I mean.

Weirdly this is all over the news today, random coincidence thar...


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

Just out of interest, if we we're heading for another ice age, would us all driving around in v12 monsters help stave off the ice age for a few hundred years while we worked out how to effectively get off the planet?
Just a thought :lol:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Trig said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Where man no doubt can cause environmental damage, the natural damage nature can and does do on a regular basis dwarfs it. This is however no excuse for what we do, but on a grand scale the earth will be fine.
> ...


no random coincidence,,, see post 9 , pg 1


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Trig said:


> Just out of interest, if we we're heading for another ice age, would us all driving around in v12 monsters help stave off the ice age for a few hundred years while we worked out how to effectively get off the planet?
> Just a thought :lol:


I guess it depends on your definition of 'heading for another ice age'. I suppose technically, you're *always* heading for one unless you've just got out of the last one ever, but if it's 40,000 years away does it really count?

The myth that ice ages happen religiously every 10k-12k years might lead people to think we're getting 'close' to one now, but there have been numerous interglacial periods longer than that and the current scientific predictions are that the one we're in now could last 30k-50k years, without human intervention. In fact by some definitions of 'ice age' we're still in the tail-end of the previous one.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

jamman said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Do some research.
> ...


Only part of the Sun I believe is the date at the top, and it's only right for a few hours.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > the hole in the ozone layer, global warming, climate change, rising sea levels. All bollocks.
> ...


why , when they already know all that, and continue to make up their own evidence and build computer maps which subsequently prove to give false impresions,, the IPCC is a clique of doctrine driven comprehensively discredited self interested scientists who survive on a mantra of scare mongering


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

roddy said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > brian1978 said:
> ...


Didn't someone just report that global warming hasn't actually been happening for the last 15years?

But ipcc say it's a "blip". and how do they know? Let's concentrate what we DO know, that is the earths temperature has not been rising.

As I said, global warming is bollocks.


----------



## Trig (Jun 7, 2013)

> Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F)


Given the increase in population thats not much of an increase per head.

What we need to do is just live greeener lives in general, not because the planets getting warm because it'll warm up and cool down of its own accord, nothing we do will stop it, we might change the rate at which things happen but in the grand scheme we're not that impressive.

I dislike the term global warming, its climate change, yes we effect it but we are not the cause and we cant stop it, another sign that the human race as a whole is arrogant and self important...


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

what we can do tho is be more careful with what we polute and destroy, whether or not the earth gets too hot or cold to live on , if we continue at our current rate ther will be nowhere for us or other land or sea based life to exist


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

roddy said:


> what we can do tho is be more careful with what we polute and destroy, whether or not the earth gets too hot or cold to live on , if we continue at our current rate ther will be nowhere for us or other land or sea based life to exist


Hypothetically if we could make the earth uninhabitable for human's we would kill ourselves long before we could kill all life, and the planet would regain a natural stance. I doubt we will sterilize the earth, we can't even sterilize a hospital ward lol.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> ]why , when they already know all that, and continue to make up their own evidence and build computer maps which subsequently prove to give false impresions,, the IPCC is a clique of doctrine driven comprehensively discredited self interested scientists who survive on a mantra of scare mongering


When 95% of the scientific community agree with the contents of the IPCC report, where are you getting your 'information' from? Do you know anything about the scientific method?



Trig said:


> yes we effect it but we are not the cause and we cant stop it


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No one is suggesting we can or should attempt to stop natural changes in the global temperature. It's the changes caused by us that we need to stop.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

So global temperatures haven't risen in 15 years, but 3rd world development and huge exponential growth in country's like India and China must have increased net carbon emissions. There's more cars on the roads than ever before. And industry across the globe is bigger than ever.

ok so the western world is proactive against climate change, but the 3rd world india and china are surly offsetting this, so why has global warming stopped?

Am I missing something spandy?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> So global temperatures haven't risen in 15 years, but 3rd world development and huge exponential growth in country's like India and China must have increased net carbon emissions. There's more cars on the roads than ever before. And industry across the globe is bigger than ever.
> 
> Am I missing something spandy?


Yes, you're missing all the available evidence, the vast body of work done on the subject so far and most importantly you're missing the qualifications and experience needed to analyse it and form an opinion worth listening to.

You're not disagreeing with me here. You're disagreeing with the vast majority of scientists and climatologists who have spent decades studying this. There is consensus. This is an important point which the skeptics like to ignore, but it's there.


----------



## BaueruTc (Aug 21, 2011)

Errrr I clicked on this tread due to the Title and it takes me into the middle of a heated debate :?:

Anyway pretty cool about the new arrivals. Might get an other sneezing panda clip out of them! :lol:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > So global temperatures haven't risen in 15 years, but 3rd world development and huge exponential growth in country's like India and China must have increased net carbon emissions. There's more cars on the roads than ever before. And industry across the globe is bigger than ever.
> ...


NOT missing the fact that they have come up witth computer maps that have delivered false conclusions,,, ( shit in,, shit out )


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> NOT missing the fact that they have come up witth computer maps that have delivered false conclusions,,, ( shit in,, shit out )


Firstly Roddy, showing that scientists have created models which have proved innacurate is not evidence of incompetence and is not evidence that ALL their claims should now be dismissed. To suggest that just shows a complete lack of understanding about how science works.

Secondly, discrediting the IPCC is meaningless, when the scientific community as a whole have analysed the data and broadly agree with their findings. This is because the scientific community understand how science works so they don't do what you do and throw the baby out with the bath water every time something doesn't work exactly as predicted.

Again, it comes down to the same point as before. You know significantly less than the scientists who have all agreed that this is happening, yet you decide to disagree based on reading one or two articles. What you should ask yourself is why you chose to believe those articles over the ones that back the concept of man made climate change (and it was a choice, as you have no real understanding of the science involved).


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

" discrediting the IPCC is meaningless ",,if you think that then i will be happy just to dissagree with you on this issue,, it was not me who discredited them,, i was only picking up on the fact that their main issue, their claims that the earth would have reached certain levels in certain quantifiable aspects are totally wrong , while still propogating the same myths and dogma on unquantifiable issues (  ) surely one does not have to be a scientis to realise that there is a basic error somewhere, and again tho i am not a scientist ( :roll: ) when someone tells me lies it makes me suspicous of their motives ,,, as Bob Dylan said,, " you dont need a weather cock to see which way the wind blows "..
perhaps what i should ask myself is why, eg., you choose to suggest that i have only read one or two articles and that i know noothing of the sciene involved,, or why,if it is not incomptence that these learned people should produce such inacurate maps ,you do not ask yourself, what is it ? ,, or why do you believe the myths when the quantifiable stuff is proven wrong ..


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

I like pandas


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

<edit>Comment deleted - I honestly can't be arsed with another of these Roddy.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Spandex said:


> <edit>Comment deleted - I honestly can't be arsed with another of these Roddy.


prhaps not,, but before you accept defeat then try a wee read at,, Laframboise, Curry, or even Delingpole.. if i could cut and paste or even post links then i would do so..


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> prhaps not,, but before you accept defeat then try a wee read at,, Laframboise, Curry, or even Delingpole.. if i could cut and paste or even post links then i would do so..


What I can't be arsed with is specifically discussing it with you. No amount of reading will turn that into an enjoyable experience, sorry.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)




----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

What is aparent is that it is never a pleasant experience for you when your arguments do not stack up ,,,,


----------

