You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Was Greta wrong
April 24 2024 7.42pm

Was Greta wrong

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View Ouzo Dan's Profile Ouzo Dan 06 Feb 21 4.37pm Send a Private Message to Ouzo Dan Add Ouzo Dan as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Shame mate, hopefully something will work out. I went back to education as an adult. Got qualified in what I wanted to do. Got divorced, met sexier girls in college, and work part time for much more money than I got for full time before. Just an idea you could consider.

Cheers fella, Haha no shortage of sexy girls out here but I get your point
I have a gf and a 4 month old baby here that was in intensive care for the first month of his life & I wasnt allowed to be there for the birth/first month due to dystopian Covid laws.

The plan was to head back in April and I was looking at joining the Army Reserves & coupling that with a part time job although losing the most important season of the year for me has brought that forward.


Originally posted by cryrst

Can you take advanced bookings from your regulars.
I'm sure they would understand. Or offer some of the regulars a slice going forwards. Maybe open book profit sharing for a few years.
Can you tell I'm paye


I have one group who booked for this year but asked if I would move it to 2022 because of whats going on & I have no problem doing that but that's technically my only regular.
I opened middle of Jan last year and due to the government having no clue on how to deal with covid I have been open for 3 months in total and the rest I have been forced to close.


Edited by Ouzo Dan (06 Feb 2021 4.38pm)

 


Sex Panther 60% of the time it works every time

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Vaibow's Profile Vaibow Flag vancouver/croydon 07 Feb 21 10.23pm Send a Private Message to Vaibow Add Vaibow as a friend

Originally posted by cantrbury eagle

Just seen on my local news that it has been the coldest January for 10 years. Not a climate change denier but wasn't it supposed to be getting a lot warmer.

There are news articles saying temps have risen this past year, due to the air being so clean, more sun radiation has gotten in..

Couldn't make it up

 


This was once a quality forum....

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 08 Feb 21 5.45am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Vaibow

There are news articles saying temps have risen this past year, due to the air being so clean, more sun radiation has gotten in..

Couldn't make it up

Well the tree huggers have! For years and years with support from some very frightened scientists.
The ones who are afraid to go against the money men. As stirling wrote in a different post.
And I paraphrase "be afraid of the people you cant criticise".

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BarEagle's Profile BarEagle Flag Monmouth 08 Feb 21 6.31am Send a Private Message to BarEagle Add BarEagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Well the tree huggers have! For years and years with support from some very frightened scientists.
The ones who are afraid to go against the money men. As stirling wrote in a different post.
And I paraphrase "be afraid of the people you cant criticise".

People who deny climate change should join the flat earth society. The evidence of a flat earth is however, more debatable than the former.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 08 Feb 21 6.16pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by BarEagle

People who deny climate change should join the flat earth society. The evidence of a flat earth is however, more debatable than the former.

Perfect reply from a tree hugger not prepared to discuss if they could be wrong. BTW I have never said climate change isnt happening; i just question our if our part is as big as reported. The earth is quite old and in a 24hour clock weve been here about 20 seconds. What happened with the climate in the previous few minutes let alone hours. This is after all the volcanoes and mountains stopped growing as quickly and erupting daily. Did you read the first part of the post I replied to? Now you can use that as evidence of global warming, what a bonus lockdown has been for some!

Edited by cryrst (08 Feb 2021 6.18pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View grumpymort's Profile grumpymort Flag US/Thailand/UK 09 Feb 21 1.42am Send a Private Message to grumpymort Add grumpymort as a friend

Originally posted by Seagles

"So called scientists"?

Michael Connolly is an A-level science teacher and his son Ronan Connolly is a computational chemist. His wife Imelda has several degrees in music and child development. Is this who you mean by the "connollys"? If anyone is interested, they self publish all of their work - without peer review - which is probably why no one has ever had anything to come back at the with.

Regarding your last comment, you are of course 100% right but respectfully I think you are missing the point. In just 200 years everyone I know and everyone I will ever meet will be dead and gone*, but the earth will still be here. That doesnt mean I am any less accountable for my actions or the state I leave the planet in when I go.

*Edit: it's important to note that I will also be dead and gone in 200 years, I'm not an immortal serial killer. Honest.

Edited by Seagles (04 Feb 2021 4.16pm)

So you think because some one has not gone and got a title they are not creditable a bit of paper is meaningless it's an appeal to authority. (I suggest you re look up their qualifications they have more then you claim anyway)

Again what is wrong with self publishing you keep attacking these people with no basis if they are wrong prove it.

Next again you complain because not peer reviewed like that matters if you knew anything about peer reviews most of the time they are biased or paid off again if they are wrong people can prove this yet no one has because they don't have anything they can use to discredit them this is how science works.

Correct in 200 years the people you know will be dead so that is life it has nothing to do with climate change again already been proven by these people with none of these experts firing back with anything because as is the case with a lot of these they have nothing to do with the truth but agendas.

Most of the people that go on these crusades about must save the planet do this or that stop climate change they do nothing to help they end up switching to alternatives which are not really better or they end up causing more harm in the long run this is like Vegans claiming to help animals and planet when their way of life causes more harm to both plus its terrible for human nutrition/health

 


(VPN) - [Link]
(Alt VPN) - [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Speronilover69 8=D~~'s Profile Speronilover69 8=D~~ Flag Horsham 09 Feb 21 9.21am Send a Private Message to Speronilover69 8=D~~ Add Speronilover69 8=D~~ as a friend

-

S_prjyodxKNcpkbIiVT2Gp7xVgZ9NAB5t3n5OtdorO0.jpg Attachment: S_prjyodxKNcpkbIiVT2Gp7xVgZ9NAB5t3n5OtdorO0.jpg (66.37Kb)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Seagles's Profile Seagles Flag Croydon 09 Feb 21 3.03pm Send a Private Message to Seagles Add Seagles as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort

So you think because some one has not gone and got a title they are not creditable a bit of paper is meaningless it's an appeal to authority. (I suggest you re look up their qualifications they have more then you claim anyway)

Again what is wrong with self publishing you keep attacking these people with no basis if they are wrong prove it.

Next again you complain because not peer reviewed like that matters if you knew anything about peer reviews most of the time they are biased or paid off again if they are wrong people can prove this yet no one has because they don't have anything they can use to discredit them this is how science works.

Correct in 200 years the people you know will be dead so that is life it has nothing to do with climate change again already been proven by these people with none of these experts firing back with anything because as is the case with a lot of these they have nothing to do with the truth but agendas.

Most of the people that go on these crusades about must save the planet do this or that stop climate change they do nothing to help they end up switching to alternatives which are not really better or they end up causing more harm in the long run this is like Vegans claiming to help animals and planet when their way of life causes more harm to both plus its terrible for human nutrition/health

Hi grumpymort,
Sorry if I got their qualifications wrong, I lifted them straight from their own website. The "appeal to authority" argument doesn't apply here, that argument can apply to arguments rooted in believing an authority without the proof to back it up, not to situations with believing an expert with scientifically verifiable data - if it did, you could succesfully argue anything away and we would never get anywhere.

I'm not attacking the Connollys at all; I assume they are doing their work in good faith, that they believe they are right and that they are not just trying to be controversial and live off the proceeds. It's not up to me to prove them wrong though, I am even less qualified than they are. It is up to them to prove they are right which they have not done.

Peer review matters hugely in modern day science. If you self publish on your own website you are not getting your work out there into the world for your peers to see. (As an example: you and I could run our own experiments and conclude that people are made of cheese, then self publish. No one would ever prove us wrong. By your logic that would be all the proof we would need that we are right and that people are made of cheese.)

Your mentioning of veganism is a straw man - i.e. it has nothing to do with any of my original points and I have never argued in it's favour... but it is an unusual idea - I'd love a source for your quote about veganism being bad for the environment and animals and for people's health. I've had a look online and can't find anyone claiming that at the moment (I haven't asked the Connoly's though lol!)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View grumpymort's Profile grumpymort Flag US/Thailand/UK 09 Feb 21 4.49pm Send a Private Message to grumpymort Add grumpymort as a friend

Originally posted by Seagles

Hi grumpymort,
Sorry if I got their qualifications wrong, I lifted them straight from their own website. The "appeal to authority" argument doesn't apply here, that argument can apply to arguments rooted in believing an authority without the proof to back it up, not to situations with believing an expert with scientifically verifiable data - if it did, you could succesfully argue anything away and we would never get anywhere.

I'm not attacking the Connollys at all; I assume they are doing their work in good faith, that they believe they are right and that they are not just trying to be controversial and live off the proceeds. It's not up to me to prove them wrong though, I am even less qualified than they are. It is up to them to prove they are right which they have not done.

Peer review matters hugely in modern day science. If you self publish on your own website you are not getting your work out there into the world for your peers to see. (As an example: you and I could run our own experiments and conclude that people are made of cheese, then self publish. No one would ever prove us wrong. By your logic that would be all the proof we would need that we are right and that people are made of cheese.)

Your mentioning of veganism is a straw man - i.e. it has nothing to do with any of my original points and I have never argued in it's favour... but it is an unusual idea - I'd love a source for your quote about veganism being bad for the environment and animals and for people's health. I've had a look online and can't find anyone claiming that at the moment (I haven't asked the Connoly's though lol!)

You don't understand how science scene works if you come out with evidence or theory and it is incorrect people will call you out on it and provide evidence so stating its for them to shows its correct not at all they have presented the data and the methods to collect it no one has been able to disprove it so currently that is the facts unless somebody else proves otherwise.


The Connollys work is open peer so not sure why you keep going on about peer review.

As stated before you don't understand the system peer review system is corrupt go and read any random peer reviewed trials/studies based on nutrition this is a clear example of it people selected or paid off to agree.

A clear example of one cholesterol peer reviewed how bad it is for us it causes heart disease etc yet no evidence of causation or mechanistic data based also look at who funds these studies then the peer reviewers details most times they will have a link or are biased because they have lots to gain from the pills that would then be recommended.

The vegan information was a clear example about again as I pointed out peer reviews not being creditable another one go and pick out studies on vegan diet and look how pro vegan they are with again no real evidence next look at the peer reviewers info conflict of interest.

You can't find any information being a Vegan is all those things not looking very hard are you heres a simple one straight away crop deaths, another one the crops they consume destroys soil animals are required to help fix this (well this is animal abuse cant do that) you can look all this up and speak to farmers/ranchers they will let you this.

Next so flying product or transporting via sea crops/fruit over the world is good for environment when you could eat one animal a year which is raised in your own backyard with 0 impact on environment.

A health fact 85% of vegans quit that way of life within 5 year due to health issues they always require taking supplements because it's impossible to get all required nutrition from plants/fruit (people do not even understand basic nutrition they have been fed so many lies and do not even research how metabolic pathways etc work it explains how we should eat, what we should eat and avoid (A simple one is people don't even know we do not require any carbs in out diet because they have been lied so much how you must consume them)


 


(VPN) - [Link]
(Alt VPN) - [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Vaibow's Profile Vaibow Flag vancouver/croydon 10 Feb 21 6.08am Send a Private Message to Vaibow Add Vaibow as a friend

Originally posted by BarEagle

People who deny climate change should join the flat earth society. The evidence of a flat earth is however, more debatable than the former.

The earth is indeed flat - I will gladly discuss this with you and answer any questions you may have.. trolling of course, will be ignored... it also shows a lack of knowledge on both sides of the argument.

 


This was once a quality forum....

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Speronilover69 8=D~~'s Profile Speronilover69 8=D~~ Flag Horsham 10 Feb 21 8.39am Send a Private Message to Speronilover69 8=D~~ Add Speronilover69 8=D~~ as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort

You don't understand how science scene works if you come out with evidence or theory and it is incorrect people will call you out on it and provide evidence so stating its for them to shows its correct not at all they have presented the data and the methods to collect it no one has been able to disprove it so currently that is the facts unless somebody else proves otherwise.


The Connollys work is open peer so not sure why you keep going on about peer review.

As stated before you don't understand the system peer review system is corrupt go and read any random peer reviewed trials/studies based on nutrition this is a clear example of it people selected or paid off to agree.

A clear example of one cholesterol peer reviewed how bad it is for us it causes heart disease etc yet no evidence of causation or mechanistic data based also look at who funds these studies then the peer reviewers details most times they will have a link or are biased because they have lots to gain from the pills that would then be recommended.

The vegan information was a clear example about again as I pointed out peer reviews not being creditable another one go and pick out studies on vegan diet and look how pro vegan they are with again no real evidence next look at the peer reviewers info conflict of interest.

You can't find any information being a Vegan is all those things not looking very hard are you heres a simple one straight away crop deaths, another one the crops they consume destroys soil animals are required to help fix this (well this is animal abuse cant do that) you can look all this up and speak to farmers/ranchers they will let you this.

Next so flying product or transporting via sea crops/fruit over the world is good for environment when you could eat one animal a year which is raised in your own backyard with 0 impact on environment.

A health fact 85% of vegans quit that way of life within 5 year due to health issues they always require taking supplements because it's impossible to get all required nutrition from plants/fruit (people do not even understand basic nutrition they have been fed so many lies and do not even research how metabolic pathways etc work it explains how we should eat, what we should eat and avoid (A simple one is people don't even know we do not require any carbs in out diet because they have been lied so much how you must consume them)


Would have to be a pretty big animal to last you the whole year

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Seagles's Profile Seagles Flag Croydon 10 Feb 21 9.38am Send a Private Message to Seagles Add Seagles as a friend

Originally posted by grumpymort

You don't understand how science scene works if you come out with evidence or theory and it is incorrect people will call you out on it and provide evidence so stating its for them to shows its correct not at all they have presented the data and the methods to collect it no one has been able to disprove it so currently that is the facts unless somebody else proves otherwise.


The Connollys work is open peer so not sure why you keep going on about peer review.

As stated before you don't understand the system peer review system is corrupt go and read any random peer reviewed trials/studies based on nutrition this is a clear example of it people selected or paid off to agree.

A clear example of one cholesterol peer reviewed how bad it is for us it causes heart disease etc yet no evidence of causation or mechanistic data based also look at who funds these studies then the peer reviewers details most times they will have a link or are biased because they have lots to gain from the pills that would then be recommended.

The vegan information was a clear example about again as I pointed out peer reviews not being creditable another one go and pick out studies on vegan diet and look how pro vegan they are with again no real evidence next look at the peer reviewers info conflict of interest.

You can't find any information being a Vegan is all those things not looking very hard are you heres a simple one straight away crop deaths, another one the crops they consume destroys soil animals are required to help fix this (well this is animal abuse cant do that) you can look all this up and speak to farmers/ranchers they will let you this.

Next so flying product or transporting via sea crops/fruit over the world is good for environment when you could eat one animal a year which is raised in your own backyard with 0 impact on environment.

A health fact 85% of vegans quit that way of life within 5 year due to health issues they always require taking supplements because it's impossible to get all required nutrition from plants/fruit (people do not even understand basic nutrition they have been fed so many lies and do not even research how metabolic pathways etc work it explains how we should eat, what we should eat and avoid (A simple one is people don't even know we do not require any carbs in out diet because they have been lied so much how you must consume them)


Open peer is one thing, but they published on their own website opjr.com (standing for open peer journal review, a name it could be suggested is designed to pull the wool over people's eyes, since no one else usesd that website but them)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one - my view of the Connollys is a music teacher and her family that used to look at climate data in their spare time, your opinion seems to be that they are the most intelligent and insightful group of climate scientists on the planet.

Re veganism, you brought that up not me. I'm not a vegan and never could be, its way too difficult and I understand why people would quit especially if they are doing it wrong and not getting the proper nutrition. But like you I can easily find individual examples of some things some vegans do (like flying strawberries around the world) that aren't good for the environment, and so on. I can't find anyone taking all of the individual arguments you have made and coming to the conclusion that veganism is worse than meat eating for health,animals and the environment like you seem to be suggesting, so I put it to you that you are wrong on that one.

Plus you are conflagrating two arguments - eating locally sourced food vs imported food is not the same discussion as eating meat vs being a vegan.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Was Greta wrong