Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
OtleyLad

Well worth a read and a listen

This Changes Everything - Naomi Klein.

Well written and articulate argument for governments doing a lot more to combat climate change. She was interviewed on Woman's Hour today too.
Ty Gwyn

Does it,i`m not convinced at all,
Where`s the proof?

The climate has changed several times since the World began,what`s new,
Since i`ve been on the land the weather has been changeable so have the seasons,what`s new.
Rob R

Watch this programme, it's very interesting and useful to see why so many people have drawn the same conclusions over climate change.

Climate Change by Numbers
OtleyLad

Does it,i`m not convinced at all,
Where`s the proof?

The climate has changed several times since the World began,what`s new,
Since i`ve been on the land the weather has been changeable so have the seasons,what`s new.



Of course there are natural climate cycles (due to the variable nature of the earth's orbit over the centuries, etc) but what the scientists are talking about is the change due to us burning millions of tons of fossil fuels and changing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere on top of the natural cycles. This has been measured and is proven beyond doubt.

We'd be crazy to continue pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it - its happening.

Prove to me it isn't.
vegplot

Prove to me it isn't.
While I agree with you the onus on proof is on those make a claim rather than those denying it. Prove to me there isn't a chocolate tea pot in orbit around the moon.

Back to Ty Gwyn.

The evidence is very clear and the more data we gather the greater becomes the case for demonstrating that man has a profound effect on climate change. What is damaging is not that climate is changing but the rate of change is so fast the evolution cannot keep pace fast enough for the animal kingdom to adapt and survive and species extinction increases at an ever great pace.
Ty Gwyn

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,

And their both advanced countries.
Rob R

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,

And their both advanced countries.

Have you watched the Climate Change by Numbers programme?
Ty Gwyn

I watched half of it the other night when you placed the link,must finish watching one night. OtleyLad

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,

And their both advanced countries.

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans are accelerating climate change. They are not all in agreement about the rate or the exact consequences. Just because governments still condone buurning of fossil fuels doesn't alter the facts. If we don't change and soon we are all heading for a very rocky future.
OtleyLad

Prove to me it isn't. While I agree with you the onus on proof is on those make a claim rather than those denying it. Prove to me there isn't a chocolate tea pot in orbit around the moon.



Thats like wanting me to prove the earth is round when its already common knowledge. Its the 21st century and there is no need to prove climate change.
vegplot

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,

Really?

What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,


What about it? Are you suggesting that because there of climate change we shouldn't have ice? Climate change is about trends not fluctuations.


Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.


Because they're the power house of Europe perhaps?


Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,


"A lack of locations with constant wind, environmental restrictions, and emphasis by power utilities on fossil and nuclear power hinders the employment of more wind power in the country".

No mention of sustainable energy? Where do you get your information from? A very quick search show Japan is investing in renewables but is hindered by industry. Don't forget Japan has relatively weak governance.
vegplot

Prove to me it isn't. While I agree with you the onus on proof is on those make a claim rather than those denying it. Prove to me there isn't a chocolate tea pot in orbit around the moon.



Thats like wanting me to prove the earth is round when its already common knowledge. Its the 21st century and there is no need to prove climate change.

You miss the point. The assertion is plainly ridiculous and it's futile to try and prove it wrong. The claimant has to prove their case beyond reasonable double. You asked Ty Gwyn to prove something isn't so. Is that not just as futile?
Rob R

I watched half of it the other night when you placed the link,must finish watching one night.

It answers most questions about it. The change is definitely happening, and there's certainly no harm in reducing our extraction of carbon while we work out how to perfect carbon capture. Come the day we do perfect it, the coal, oil & gas will still be there.
Jamanda

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,

And their both advanced countries.

97% of scientists do agree with each other. Scientists are not the politicians who make the decisions.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Graham Hyde

The current climate is not the normal for planet earth.
We are actually still emerging from an ice age.
Fact.
Falstaff



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
vegplot

The current climate is not the normal for planet earth.
We are actually still emerging from an ice age.
Fact.

I don't think anyone is doubting climate change happens (see Milankovitch Cycles), naturally. What the debate is about is man's influence on the rate of climate change.
Rob R



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.
Jamanda



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

That's the trouble with evolution too. People just can't get their heads round the numbers.
Falstaff



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused
Graham Hyde

When one large volcanic eruption can put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the last 50 years of human endeavour I think most people have it wrong.....some on purpose for financial reasons.
Largest producer of CO2 never signed Kyoto agreement.
UK made promises of twice the reduction of the original Kyoto agreement but put the onus on the user by charging a Climate Change Levy. Note 'Levy' not 'Tax'. With a levy they could charge VAT on this charge.
Falstaff

I didn't realise they charged VAT on the Levy Graham.

I do believe you're right though, the "Global warming Industry" is worth a huge amount of money and successive Govts and a good few "Scientists" have been sucked into "the faith" to the extent they daren't now admit to being wrong, on pain of losing their credibility and incomes ! Rolling Eyes
Jamanda

I didn't realise they charged VAT on the Levy Graham.

I do believe you're right though, the "Global warming Industry" is worth a huge amount of money and successive Govts and a good few "Scientists" have been sucked into "the faith" to the extent they daren't now admit to being wrong, on pain of losing their credibility and incomes ! Rolling Eyes

Nonsense. How do you feel about vaccination?
Graham Hyde

Hi Jamanda. Sorry you lost me, what about vaccination? Rob R



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused

The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.

The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough.
Jamanda

Hi Jamanda. Sorry you lost me, what about vaccination?

The same sort of nonsense about how scientists are all wrong, and it's all some big conspiracy is bandied about by climate change deniers and anti vaxers.
Graham Hyde

Check your utility bills. CCL appears before the VAT. You all are and have been supporting this nonsense and it seems now that some of you are unaware of this fact.
How much does of this revenue is spent on the climate?
You tell me.....you are paying for it.
Jamanda

Bothers me not. I like the look of wind turbines too. Falstaff



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused

The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.

The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough.

Rob - it goes Up and Down !

What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " Rolling Eyes
Graham Hyde

Hi Jamanda.
I am not saying all scientists are wrong.
Vaccination was being used by native Americans long before the 'discovery' by the Europeans, however some very brave, dedicated men and women developed the vaccination process for which I am thankful.
Rob R

Check your utility bills. CCL appears before the VAT. You all are and have been supporting this nonsense and it seems now that some of you are unaware of this fact.
How much does of this revenue is spent on the climate?
You tell me.....you are paying for it.

Not on my bills it doesn't.
Jamanda

The great thing about science, is that just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. Falstaff

Check your utility bills. CCL appears before the VAT. You all are and have been supporting this nonsense and it seems now that some of you are unaware of this fact.
...........

I wonder if that's even legal ? Confused
Rob R



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused

The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.

The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough.

Rob - it goes Up and Down !

What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " Rolling Eyes

0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it.
Falstaff



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused

The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.

The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough.

Rob - it goes Up and Down !

What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " Rolling Eyes

0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it.

0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years !
Graham Hyde

Hi RobR.
I've not been paying utility bills in the UK for some time so am not aware of the manner of your bill.
CCL used to be itemised on all utility bills. I do not know if it still is. What I do know is that it is vatable.
Rob R



..........It answers most questions about it. ............

To the tune (the programme postulates of 0.87 degrees in 140 years ! Shocked Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Which doesn't seem much, until you consider the rate of change in those 140 years v the previous 3.5 billion years.

Yes rob - it's been up and down like a bride's nighty !

However 0.87 degrees is statistical noise - if it's even true ! (and not even loud noise !)

Confused

The temperature has been up & down, yes, that's weather, not climate. Had the current trend continued at the rate it has for those 140 years, the temperature would have risen 21,250,000 degrees in 3.5bn years.

The noise may not be very loud to you, but where I'm standing, 29ft above sea level, it's loud enough.

Rob - it goes Up and Down !

What have we had ? 200 Ice ages in that time ? - but that's "Weather" whereas 0.87 degrees (maybe) in 140 years - "That's Climate " Rolling Eyes

0.85/7 degrees is an average TREND, the temperature can rise and drop below and above the trend (or average) and continue to maintain the same trend line. The worrying thing about climate change is not that it is changing, but that the rate at which it is changing is quicker than we, and other species, can adapt to cope with it.

0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years !

The source you cited gives 0.85 degrees, but yes. A small amount over a relatively small period of time.

I've only been around 30odd years, but even I can see it changing, and it's getting wetter, here.
Rob R

Hi RobR.
I've not been paying utility bills in the UK for some time so am not aware of the manner of your bill.
CCL used to be itemised on all utility bills. I do not know if it still is. What I do know is that it is vatable.

Electric generated by renewables is exempt from the levy.
Graham Hyde

Hi Jamanda.
Who or what are 'scientists' Someone in a white lab coat?
I am not saying all are wrong about everything, just some about something.
Read Patrick Moores first book where he explains that the craters on the moon are extinct volcanoes.
Read how 'scientists' say over 70% of the universe is missing and mumble about dark matter.
People do make mistakes, speak about things when ill informed.
This world is amazing and I don't think we will ever know all its mysteries. What I do know is life is too short to get annoyed with people over silly differences of opinion.
Ty Gwyn

Rob,
I watched the remainder of Climate by numbers,very interesting indeed,
But one of the calculations made by the 2nd presenter based on Kreager in the South African gold fields,when working out the value of gold in the area,just did`nt add up for me,
If that had been working out the value of coal in the under lying land with varying horizontal seams,it was feasible,
But with most metal minerals,the lodes are varying vertical with barren ground between,and only following the course of the lode could a fairly accurate value be based on the land.

What also bug`s me is,of these climate change scientists given the data they have at hand,proven in the link,and numerous links following,20 -30 years ago they were predicting a return to the Ice Age,then all of a sudden it was the Ozone layer,Green House gases,Global Warming and now Climate Change.
Graham Hyde

Hi Rob R.
Yes, always was but the remaining is VATable.
Falstaff


Quote:


......0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years !


The source you cited gives 0.85 degrees, but yes. A small amount over a relatively small period of time.

I've only been around 30odd years, but even I can see it changing, and it's getting wetter, here.

Rob - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !

However, each of us remembers those "Long hot days of summer" from our childhood - and yes for a young man, whatever the age, the weather DOES seem to get wetter as we become adult !

That is to do with how the brain remembers time as we get older - that's all ! Smile
Graham Hyde

There is no doubt that humans are impacting on the earths environment. However, what is in doubt are the proposed measures to be taken to manage that impact.
Influential people and institutions have goals that are not the aim of the common man.
If, for your own and your children's sake you wish to make a difference, however small, I admire you.
Rob R

Rob,
I watched the remainder of Climate by numbers,very interesting indeed,
But one of the calculations made by the 2nd presenter based on Kreager in the South African gold fields,when working out the value of gold in the area,just did`nt add up for me,
If that had been working out the value of coal in the under lying land with varying horizontal seams,it was feasible,
But with most metal minerals,the lodes are varying vertical with barren ground between,and only following the course of the lode could a fairly accurate value be based on the land.

What also bug`s me is,of these climate change scientists given the data they have at hand,proven in the link,and numerous links following,20 -30 years ago they were predicting a return to the Ice Age,then all of a sudden it was the Ozone layer,Green House gases,Global Warming and now Climate Change.

I don't know about the gold analogy, but presumably it worked.

As for the inaccuracies of science, most may be wrong, but the more we learn, and the more changes we make (like CFC's) moves the goalposts. I don't know how accurate the estimates are, but one things for sure, reducing and stabilising carbon emissions can't do any harm, and getting more carbon in our soils can only do us some good, particularly if we have to deal with wetter seasons.
Graham Hyde

R22 was banned in most 'developed' countries. These 'developed' countries had a safe and efficient operating procedure with R22.
R22 was therefore sold and is still to 'developing' countries who had no safe and efficient operating procedures.
Look to the Middle East, an extremely large market for an example.
Rob R


Quote:


......0.87 degrees is the total supposed change over 140 years !


The source you cited gives 0.85 degrees, but yes. A small amount over a relatively small period of time.

I've only been around 30odd years, but even I can see it changing, and it's getting wetter, here.

Rob - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !

However, each of us remembers those "Long hot days of summer" from our childhood - and yes for a young man, whatever the age, the weather DOES seem to get wetter as we become adult !

That is to do with how the brain remembers time as we get older - that's all ! Smile

I'm thinking more of the frequency and severity of flooding events in the valley - how I wished the village would have been cut off so that the school bus couldn't get through, it never did. Since I left school it has been up and over several times, nothing to do with memory or perceptions.
Falstaff

ok Rob - Goodnight mate Smile Graham Hyde

Hi Rob R
Here, we've had the windiest, wetist winter in living memory.
It could be caused by the northward current off the South American coast causing an El Nino which may be caused by the de-forestation of South America or it could be peoples memory.
Who knows, but change happens.
The American version of the UK Forestry Commission has recently granted access to logging companies to trees with an average age of 200 years.
The common man by his efforts alone will not make a difference but institutions such as governments may.
Your opportunity to make a difference is coming soon in the shape of a general election.
Rob R

I aim to make a difference every single day, in the choices I make. Today's effort involved planting some trees in a new managed wetland - I've given up trying to get rid of the water, and instead decided to embrace it, and store it longer so that the good people of Hull can drink it. Graham Hyde

Rob R
Your pictures and life style are an inspiration.
You cause me no end of trouble.
When you post photos I HAVE to go to the internet café 20 miles away.
Regards,
Graham
Rob R

Fortunately for you then, the camera battery went flat after my first shot today Laughing vegplot


Rob - even th e programme you quote says there has been NO Warming since 2000 ! so you'd be very observant !


The lull has been puzzling but there have been insights as to why as research suggests it's latency in the system much in the same water that the temperature rise water turn from liquid to vapour or steam is not linear but has a step in which there is no temperature rise for a period. The planet's thermodynamics are exceedingly complex but the models continue to forecast an overall rise in temperature despite the lull.

It's misleading to take a small section of data and try to represent that as any sort of justification. You might get some comfort from it but it's delusional. You have to look at the whole dataset continuously refining your models, testing hypothesis, and questioning the data and its sources. That's what climate scientists do and I'm sure the majority of them would love to be wrong about the conclusions they've come to.
Falstaff

A simpler solution might be that Global warming is Not consequential on the levels of CO2 Smile

Occams razor suggests that when presented with a very complex solution and a simple one, it is often the simple one which is correct !
vegplot

A simpler solution might be that Global warming is Not consequential on the levels of CO2 Smile

Occams razor suggests that when presented with a very complex solution and a simple one, it is often the simple one which is correct !

And completely wrong. Only the ignorant or stupid would come to such a conclusion given the evidence.

Occam was a theologian. Says it all.
Nick

Five hundred years of being a fool. Nothing's changed.


Troll. Stop feeding. He'll stop frothing.
Tavascarow

Rob,
I watched the remainder of Climate by numbers,very interesting indeed,
But one of the calculations made by the 2nd presenter based on Kreager in the South African gold fields,when working out the value of gold in the area,just did`nt add up for me,
If that had been working out the value of coal in the under lying land with varying horizontal seams,it was feasible,
But with most metal minerals,the lodes are varying vertical with barren ground between,and only following the course of the lode could a fairly accurate value be based on the land.

What also bug`s me is,of these climate change scientists given the data they have at hand,proven in the link,and numerous links following,20 -30 years ago they were predicting a return to the Ice Age,then all of a sudden it was the Ozone layer,Green House gases,Global Warming and now Climate Change. The reason it is now called climate change instead of global warming is the publics inability (as has been shown here on this thread) to believe the average global temperature is rising. But there is an increase in 'freak' weather events, hence the name change. Yes twenty or thirty years ago we where talking about triggering a new ice age. That is still possible. It has nothing to do with average temperature rises directly, but the increase of fresh water mixing with the sea water. This will (as has happened in the past, proved by ice core samples) switch off the Gulf stream that keeps our climate mild. See shutdown of thermohaline circulation. So in answer to your doubts they are all true. The planet is warming. The climate is changing. & we could all still freeze our knackers off if we dont wise up. Tavascarow

The trouble is,there are a lot of scientists who do not agree with each other,
What about the climate change scientists ship that got stuck in the ice not long back,similar to Mr Scott,
Why is the biggest member of the EU pumping out so much carbon?
Surely its not because they have vast numbers of Wind Turbines so they can balance their carbon books.
Now Japan ,the site of the Kyoto agreement is changing back to coal,no mention of sustainable energy,

And their both advanced countries.

97% of scientists do agree with each other. Scientists are not the politicians who make the decisions.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ & no doubt the majority of the 3% are employed or funded by the industries responsible for said. Big industry is very good at buying yes men. & they don't come any bigger than the oil, gas & coal industries. Falstaff

[

...... The reason it is now called climate change instead of global warming is the publics inability (as has been shown here on this thread) to believe the average global temperature is rising. But there is an increase in 'freak' weather events, hence the name change. ............

.

Thanks for that Tc- I have wondered for a while why they dropped "Global warming" Confused
Your explanation makes perfect sense Cool

Now they don't even have to prove any warming ! Laughing Laughing Laughing

So where does that leave the "Warming is consequential upon CO2 levels " argument ? Rolling Eyes
vegplot


So where does that leave the "Warming is consequential upon CO2 levels " argument ? Rolling Eyes

That's called science. You know, the stuff that based on measurable repeatable evidence.

You could do the experiment yourself with the right equipment.
Nick

Kippers don't believe in science. They, generally, prefer, dogma and frothing. They're Sayers of no, not askers of how or why. Falstaff

Kippers don't believe in science. They, generally, prefer, dogma and frothing. They're Sayers of no, not askers of how or why.

I presume that is aimed at me ?

What a load of dross ! Rolling Eyes

You're actually behaving like quite a significant bully aren't you ?
Nick

Yes !

No !
Falstaff

Yes !

No !

How do YOU classify you're behaviour then ?
vegplot

Lock yourself in an airtight box. As the CO2 levels rise I can guarantee so will the temperature. But don't take my word for it. Nick

I don't !

STOP being a bell end !
Falstaff

I don't !

STOP being a bell end ! 1

No Nick, I don't suppose you do !

I don't suppose you ever even consider that you might just come over as a bit of a boor and a bully.

I have to say that I was amazed when Chez said something a few weeks ago and you grabbed it and stuck it in your "sig" straight away :-

“……Broadening Chez's arse and Chris' Old mind….”

How do you think those two feel when they see your crassness highlighted every time they come across one of your posts ?

No Nick YOU Stop being a "Bell-end" Wink [/b]
Jamanda

<Official hat >

Simmer down boys.

<Official hat/>
Nick

Dunno. Ask them.

http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1426195#1426195

Having it as a .sig was Jamanda's idea.
Jamanda

Might have known it was all my fault Laughing
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home