Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

Can someone please ...

Into science? Chat about its amazing wonders here. E really does equal MC^2 -> Einstein would be proud!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

It's possible it's a scam, smeggy, but it would have to be a fucking remarkable one!

I don't think it is, and I'll post some information here as long as people want to see it. There's plenty of misinformation about on this subject, as you know. So if people can learn something about it, that's all that I want to see.



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

I also mentioned vaccines as an analogy. No intention to take it off topic :thumb:

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 118751
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Arnold Layne wrote:It's possible it's a scam, smeggy, but it would have to be a fucking remarkable one!

I don't think it is, and I'll post some information here as long as people want to see it. There's plenty of misinformation about on this subject, as you know. So if people can learn something about it, that's all that I want to see.


Wouldn't be that remarkable. You just fund the people who agree with man made warning. Withdraw funding and ostracise any dissenting voices and hey presto you've got your desired result. This has already happened.



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19245
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Resonance wrote:
Arnold Layne wrote:It's possible it's a scam, smeggy, but it would have to be a fucking remarkable one!

I don't think it is, and I'll post some information here as long as people want to see it. There's plenty of misinformation about on this subject, as you know. So if people can learn something about it, that's all that I want to see.


Wouldn't be that remarkable. You just fund the people who agree with man made warning. Withdraw funding and ostracise any dissenting voices and hey presto you've got your desired result. This has already happened.

That's just an anecdote or an opinion until you can provide some evidence for it. I'll look forward to seeing your links, if you don't mind.

Then I'll provide all the links to show you how much the fossil fuel industry has been funding the scepticism and misinformation.

After you! :cheers:



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

They can't be doing a very good job then. Anyone who doesn't agree with man made global warming is a DENIER! Painted as someone slightly insane, to be taken no notice of etc.

As for funding, are you saying that governments fund skeptics of climate change? If someone currently being funded came out with a paper against man made climate change, what do you think would happen to their funding?

Wherever there's lots of money to be made there is corruption and climate change is big business.



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19245
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

crumbs wrote:
How much CO2 do you think is released by our military hardware?



Very little compared to the approx 29 gigatonnes created by human activities. Worldwide military CO2 probably equals about four of the 100s of Chinese coal burning stations.

The earth used to be in moderate equilibrium regarding CO2 production and removal. It is called the carbon cycle. The extra 7% which humans add each year throws off this balance.

I have seen no arguments from sceptics to dispute that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

Nobody disputes that the average temperature of the planet has risen over the last 150 years. This has been measured by thermometers which do not form opinions on what they are supposed to show. The temperature of the sea, especially the North Atlantic has risen as it absorbs the extra heat - the fish which like cooler water are moving North as well as the the ones who are taking their place who aren't finding it quite as chilly now. They aren't moving on the views of climate change scientists. :):

I could go on and on, but I won't unless pressured. I believe that the climate scientists have been guilty of some exaggeration though, putting the worst case. The science is very complicated and nobody on the planet understands it really.

In any case, those of us who have another 40 years on the planet (not me) will no doubt find out eventually. The world downturn in the economy has put paid to big efforts to move to renewables. Plus the latest world conference on reducing emissions came up with very little.

If there is big money being put into convincing politicians that they need to act then it hasn't had much effect. :)

Never forget the iron law of unintended consequences

User avatar
Nutter!!
Posts: 9722
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Fylde Coast
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: less tired than I was

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Well said, diablo.

Resonance wrote:They can't be doing a very good job then. Anyone who doesn't agree with man made global warming is a DENIER! Painted as someone slightly insane, to be taken no notice of etc.

As for funding, are you saying that governments fund skeptics of climate change? If someone currently being funded came out with a paper against man made climate change, what do you think would happen to their funding?

Wherever there's lots of money to be made there is corruption and climate change is big business.

That's the government propaganda, yes, slightly insulting, I agree. But the reason it's called denial, is because the consensus of scientific opinion shows almost conclusively that global warming is happening.... all the evidence is around us....and that it's mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by humans. If you have studied the scientific evidence.....have you?...and still don't believe it, that's fine. But if you've not, then on what do you base your denial?

No, of course governments don't fund sceptics (UK spelling). Fossil fuel industries, corporations, fund sceptics. Just look up the influence of the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil for a start. Your statement about funding is without evidence. In fact, you've provided no evidence whatsoever. As I said before, please provide evidence for your statements, otherwise they are just your opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but what is it based on?

I agree that climate change and business should be separated. I said that before. But fossil fuel business is massive too, and that's what these other people are trying to protect at all costs.

Come on, Res, let's have something other than just an opinion. I've posted links to evidence for Arctic sea ice reduction, and reasons for the last ice age ending. I could post endless links to scientific papers. People who are sceptical of climate change on here, so far, haven't commented on those yet. I wonder if they have bothered to even read them, have you? That's what a denier does, ignore the evidence. Show us that you are not one. :thumb:



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Arnold Layne wrote:Well said, diablo.

Resonance wrote:They can't be doing a very good job then. Anyone who doesn't agree with man made global warming is a DENIER! Painted as someone slightly insane, to be taken no notice of etc.

As for funding, are you saying that governments fund skeptics of climate change? If someone currently being funded came out with a paper against man made climate change, what do you think would happen to their funding?

Wherever there's lots of money to be made there is corruption and climate change is big business.

That's the government propaganda, yes, slightly insulting, I agree. But the reason it's called denial, is because the consensus of scientific opinion shows almost conclusively that global warming is happening.... all the evidence is around us....and that it's mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by humans. If you have studied the scientific evidence.....have you?...and still don't believe it, that's fine. But if you've not, then on what do you base your denial?

No, of course governments don't fund sceptics (UK spelling). Fossil fuel industries, corporations, fund sceptics. Just look up the influence of the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil for a start. Your statement about funding is without evidence. In fact, you've provided no evidence whatsoever. As I said before, please provide evidence for your statements, otherwise they are just your opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but what is it based on?

I agree that climate change and business should be separated. I said that before. But fossil fuel business is massive too, and that's what these other people are trying to protect at all costs.

Come on, Res, let's have something other than just an opinion. I've posted links to evidence for Arctic sea ice reduction, and reasons for the last ice age ending. I could post endless links to scientific papers. People who are sceptical of climate change on here, so far, haven't commented on those yet. I wonder if they have bothered to even read them, have you? That's what a denier does, ignore the evidence. Show us that you are not one. :thumb:


Well we're agreeing then aren't we? That governments only fund people that agree with their narrative.



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19245
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Resonance wrote:
Arnold Layne wrote:Well said, diablo.

Resonance wrote:They can't be doing a very good job then. Anyone who doesn't agree with man made global warming is a DENIER! Painted as someone slightly insane, to be taken no notice of etc.

As for funding, are you saying that governments fund skeptics of climate change? If someone currently being funded came out with a paper against man made climate change, what do you think would happen to their funding?

Wherever there's lots of money to be made there is corruption and climate change is big business.

That's the government propaganda, yes, slightly insulting, I agree. But the reason it's called denial, is because the consensus of scientific opinion shows almost conclusively that global warming is happening.... all the evidence is around us....and that it's mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by humans. If you have studied the scientific evidence.....have you?...and still don't believe it, that's fine. But if you've not, then on what do you base your denial?

No, of course governments don't fund sceptics (UK spelling). Fossil fuel industries, corporations, fund sceptics. Just look up the influence of the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil for a start. Your statement about funding is without evidence. In fact, you've provided no evidence whatsoever. As I said before, please provide evidence for your statements, otherwise they are just your opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but what is it based on?

I agree that climate change and business should be separated. I said that before. But fossil fuel business is massive too, and that's what these other people are trying to protect at all costs.

Come on, Res, let's have something other than just an opinion. I've posted links to evidence for Arctic sea ice reduction, and reasons for the last ice age ending. I could post endless links to scientific papers. People who are sceptical of climate change on here, so far, haven't commented on those yet. I wonder if they have bothered to even read them, have you? That's what a denier does, ignore the evidence. Show us that you are not one. :thumb:


Well we're agreeing then aren't we? That governments only fund people that agree with their narrative.

No, not at all. I have no idea where you got that from. Do you actually think governments want to spend billions on fighting climate change? They would prefer that it wasn't happening. They actually fund scientific research. When the scientists find something, and write a paper, then that paper has to go through a peer review process before it is accepted. Now, there have been several high profile times when that process hasn't worked, but in general it does. And it's been tightened up.

So, back to my questions, which you are studiously ignoring. Are you going to address them, or do I take it that you don't want to view the evidence? :(



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

What do you make of this website Arnold? I've not looked on this site for a few years so cant say much about it myself.
http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      


Facts about CO2

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.



If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

ANOTHER TAKE ON CO2


1. The overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. Yet this component is not modeled with any accuracy in the GCMs.

2. CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 Gigatons/yr, into an atmospheric GHG reservoir estimated between 720 and 760 Gigatons. Yet we are told it is the major driver of climate and must be eliminated to save the earth.

3. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean is from 92 to 107 Gigatons/yr. There is uncertainty or an error of about ±7 Gigatons/yr, equal to the anthropogenic total. While the out gassing of CO2 from the oceans are from 90 to 103 Gigatons/yr, or an uncertainty error of about ±7 Gigatons/yr, again as large as the anthropogenic input. Yet we are told human CO2 is the major driver of climate and must be eliminated to save the earth, while the oceanic and even the soil components of sink vs. source of CO2 are so uncertain as to swamp the human inputs.

4. The net difference between oceanic uptake and out gassing estimates is about 3 Gigatons/yr, but ±14 Gigatons/yr error. However, climatologists use a figure of 2 Gigatons/yr as their estimate of the oceanic uptake of the manmade CO2 of 7 Gigatons/yr., and thus claim human CO2 stays in the atmosphere many decades. Yet they claim human CO2 is the primary climate driver and must be eliminated to save the earth. How can this be as the error estimates again swamps the tiny human inputs?

5. The instrument temperature records since 1850 or so (until satellite measures started in the 1970s)that are used to prove AGW have been shown to be inaccurate, unreliable, and tainted by numerous errors. Yet, we are told they show man's immediate impact on climate as CO2 rises (all .6 degrees C of it), thus it must be eliminated to save the earth.


Taken from the website I linked to earlier



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Now microbes farting are being blamed as well :rofl:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30489814

Trying is the first step towards failure...Homer Simpson
"Ahhhhhh bollox.... whats the point "... Me :D
I would like to thank the MOD for all of their support over the years ...thanks for fuck all :fingers:
do whaaaaaa ? :tizzles:

User avatar
It's all bollocks!
Posts: 47305
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:33 am
Location: Sunny, scintillating Blackpool . Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: FUCKIN' FUCKITTY BOLLOCKS !!!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Stanley Tweedle wrote:What do you make of this website Arnold? I've not looked on this site for a few years so cant say much about it myself.
http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

It would take me a while to get through it. I'm not going to, but I have looked at a couple of the articles.

I've looked at the latest article, "The Myth Of Settled Science." Seems a reasonable piece. It is the politicians who are trying to persuade everyone that it's all settled. That certainly isn't true, and scientists will say that. Even in the IPCC report, they give % confidence in each section. Nothing is 100% and some areas are much less. But then they are working to fill in those gaps. It's very complicated. But that in no way says global warming isn't happening. The figures say that it is. But are the predictions right? That's another question.

The 3rd one, "Global Cooling Is Here" is written by Peter Ferrara, member of The Heartland Institute, a Conservative and Libertarian Think Tank. When you see those last words, you should always look to see who funds the organisation.

From wiki (sorry it's long)...."The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget,[49] although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan.[50] Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.[51]

MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[52] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[17] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[53]

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[54] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[23] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[54][55][56] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[54]

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[39] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[50] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[57] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[13]

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[58] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart."[58] Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[58]

In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak (see below) and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. The shortfall led to the Illinois coal lobby sponsoring the institute's May 2012 climate conference – the "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry".[37] Following the leak they also lost "a couple of directors and almost its entire branch in Washington, DC."

That's just an example of where funding comes from. You could look up some of those other organisations if you can be bothered. The article itself is bollocks, by the way! :rofl:

So, would recommend that web site as being a good representation of the truth? No, Stan.



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

wotsit2 wrote:Now microbes farting are being blamed as well :rofl:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30489814


Not as bad as cows though, is it? :)



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Arnold Layne wrote:
wotsit2 wrote:Now microbes farting are being blamed as well :rofl:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30489814


Not as bad as cows though, is it? :)

KILL THE MICROBES !
i say that because i like beef :D

Trying is the first step towards failure...Homer Simpson
"Ahhhhhh bollox.... whats the point "... Me :D
I would like to thank the MOD for all of their support over the years ...thanks for fuck all :fingers:
do whaaaaaa ? :tizzles:

User avatar
It's all bollocks!
Posts: 47305
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:33 am
Location: Sunny, scintillating Blackpool . Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: FUCKIN' FUCKITTY BOLLOCKS !!!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Thanks Arnold. :)
I'm no expert or proclaim myself as searching for the truth in respect to man made climate change. That's the argument as I see it though. Man made climate change vs natural climate change. While I'm not wholly convinced fossil fuels damage the environment due to carbon emissions I do believe its harmful to the environment in many other ways and other sources should be found. I remain open minded and not absolute. Tongue tied and twisted, just a useless fencesitter I. :D



Sit on my Facebook!
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Stanley Tweedle wrote:Thanks Arnold. :)
I'm no expert or proclaim myself as searching for the truth in respect to man made climate change. That's the argument as I see it though. Man made climate change vs natural climate change. While I'm not wholly convinced fossil fuels damage the environment due to carbon emissions I do believe its harmful to the environment in many other ways and other sources should be found. I remain open minded and not absolute. Tongue tied and twisted, just a useless fencesitter I. :D

Well, there's no problem with that. You don't have to have an opinion on everything. You are right though, pollution is bad whether it is causing climate change or not. Air pollution is the 2nd biggest killer in the UK after smoking. Not a lot of people know that!

I'm not a fluffy lefty who wants everyone to turn off all their lights, give up their cars, or anything like that. I think it's down to governments to regulate industry. But trying to get a single government to do anything is bad enough, but all of them? No fucking chance!

Mind you, I did see an interesting piece in the Dail Heil yesterday. I'll just see if I can find it.............couldn't find it, but could find this same story in The Economist. China have been planting a massive forest of trees to protect itself from the encroaching Gobi Desert. It's encroaching ...wait for it ....because of massive deforestation!! :rofl:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21613334-vast-tree-planting-arid-regions-failing-halt-deserts-march-great-green-wall



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Arnold Layne wrote:
No, not at all. I have no idea where you got that from. Do you actually think governments want to spend billions on fighting climate change? They would prefer that it wasn't happening. They actually fund scientific research. When the scientists find something, and write a paper, then that paper has to go through a peer review process before it is accepted. Now, there have been several high profile times when that process hasn't worked, but in general it does. And it's been tightened up.

So, back to my questions, which you are studiously ignoring. Are you going to address them, or do I take it that you don't want to view the evidence? :(


Governments don't spend billions, tax payers do. Do I think Governments see green taxes as a new cash cow, hell yes.

I've not ignored your question. Governments (tax payers) fund studies that support man made global warming, they don't fund sceptics. I don't know what else I can say. They only fund one side of the argument, so there will only every be one result.



User avatar
Complete Nutter!!
Posts: 19245
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:11 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

I know what you are saying, Res. I was a sceptic at first. I changed my mind because I looked into the science.

Governments didn't start by investing in "global warming" as a means to con the public, it invested after scientific studies found evidence of the warming. I dare say that some people saw the potential for making vast sums of money, just as some have done with fossil fuels, but that doesn't change the science one jot.

As far as I can see, you believe there can only be one result because governments are providing the money. But that, to me, isn't the way you should be making your judgement on what is (probably) right or wrong. The only way you can make a judgement is by weighing up the scientific evidence. It's possible that you can't do that. Not everyone has sufficient a scientific education. And even if you have, it's a question of weighing up the (sometimes) conflicting evidence, and chucking away the misinformation.

There's so much at stake in financial terms that there's a big battle going on that has more to do with ideaologies than realities. That's why you see the same old stuff in America of Republicans chucking money the way of the sceptic, and setting up misinformation "think tanks." It's not easy. And, like I said, the science isn't completely settled. But it is fairly certain. If you are really interested in finding out more, I can post some links. I'm not really bothered in changing your mind. But I do feel that if you hold a certain view, you should hold it for the right reasons. As far as I'm concerned, it's the scicne that should prevail, not the fucking politicians and industrialists/money grabbers.



Loves The place!
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: France
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: Not so grumpy

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

has anyone read the latest bollocks ?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH . :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Kill a squirrel i say to save us allll
:howl: :howl: :howl: :howl: :howl: :howl: :howl: :howl: :howl:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30456869

Trying is the first step towards failure...Homer Simpson
"Ahhhhhh bollox.... whats the point "... Me :D
I would like to thank the MOD for all of their support over the years ...thanks for fuck all :fingers:
do whaaaaaa ? :tizzles:

User avatar
It's all bollocks!
Posts: 47305
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:33 am
Location: Sunny, scintillating Blackpool . Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhhtttttt
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: FUCKIN' FUCKITTY BOLLOCKS !!!

PreviousNext

Share this Topic on Facebook:

Return to General Science

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron