Reply With Quotehttps://www.skysports.com/football/n...rse-onto-pitchOriginally Posted by Jordi Culé
Perhaps we should have these guys on standby, just in case!
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-hu...climate-change
There are two things here. Scientific evidence and people's perception/opinion.
In the first instance experts who have conducted peer reviewed studies almost universally agree the case for man-made climate change. As the study above shows however only 70% of the UK's population accept that.
It is not clear on what basis the almost two in 10 who think it's false base their perception on. Perhaps they think they have a greater gift than others and it fills them with a sense of self-worth, or perhaps loads of You Tube videos and tweets bombard them with supportive contrary views when they power up their phones in the morning which they accept and regurgitate without a moments hesitation.
https://www.skysports.com/football/n...rse-onto-pitch
Perhaps we should have these guys on standby, just in case!
You forgot to mention the third thing, namely reality. What happens if the scientists and 7 out of every 10 people are wrong? Don't forget the covid vaccines were declared 100% safe and effective according to the boffins, and that wasn't true.
Were Covid vaccines declared 100% safe.?
Im not saying you are wrong but I dont recall this as most medications dont declare this. Always a chance of a reaction.
Give me some of what you are on
Wtf
100%, 99.9%, 99.7%, 97%, 95%, it doesn't matter and you are just deflecting. The question is what if the climate scientists are wrong? The economy will be destroyed, food production will be reduced drastically and replaced with synthetic products, and peoples freedoms will be curtailed. Don't you think the What If scenarios need to be gamed out before this happens?
Not such a Quiet Monkfish then. You would potentially kill people then? I’m not supporting or condoning what they are doing and there has to be a different method of getting their message across but punching people to the floor, then booting them in the head and, even more disturbing, actually driving over them......c’mon now!
Just Stop Oil won't be happy with that protest!
Anyone else remember a well known City fan trying to stop a Swansea game by dangling on the cross bar Canton Stand?
Didn't succeed and City lost the game but provided some entertainment.
Thanks. Didnt think they were declared 100% safe.
Your govt are doing a pretty good job of destroying the economy on their own without the climate scientists.
I don't have a govt.
So what if the boffins are wrong on climate, what happens then? It will have to be something more substantial than Oops!
You are missing the point that they are not what they said they were.
went to my very first city away game many moons ago with my former fellow rumney high school pupil never a dull moment when he was around and yes remembered that game
Does that all make sense in GlueyWorld?
You stated that politicians and scientists claimed vaccines were 100% safe.
Hilts questioned that. Quite rightly as you are spouting invented BS again. If there were any such claims they were made by a couple of grandstanding politicians and drowned out by everyone else who gave support for the vaccine programme.
You then seem to accept that your claim is invented. 'They' could have said 99% safe, or 95% safe or.....
Rather than accepting that you have missed the point about false reassurances or exaggerated claims - which seemed to be 'the point' you were trying and failing to make - you accuse someone else.
Have I got that right?
They were definitely not declared 100% safe. However, people who were under very little danger of any serious effects of Covid were persuaded - aggressively - to accept it to prevent passing it onto the the more vulnerable. Except that Pfizer has admitted their vaccine was never tested on whether it prevented transmission. I had 2 vaccines and a booster. I wouldn't have had any of them if I'd known this as I don't believe it posed much of a danger to me a healthy person with none of the vulnerable conditions. I won't have any more whatever I'm told because I don't like being lied to.
This is how madness infects. Vaccines were introduced at "warp speed" to try and introduce normalcy. The developers never claimed they tested for evasion of transmission but after they had done their job the gifted gang bellowed this out as proof of some kind of plot.
In reality they both significantly stopped transmission, regardless of whether they were tested for it and mitigated the effects if there was transmission.
I am not sure who lied to you that they were tested for transmission but if you ever get confronted with similar circumstances again I guess you have to go with your instincts.
If you didn't experience the "selfish bastard" pressure then lucky you. The argument that we should accept the vaccine to protect our elderly parents etc was a major theme. And it was not based on science at all.
If it wasn't based on science at all, what do you think it was based on?
Without the vaccine, life would have continued like late 2020, which I recall as being pretty unpleasant.
I had the vaccine earlier than most and was proud to have it etc and encouraged everyone to have it. But I also knew it was a risk.
We all knew it hadn't been tested as well as other drugs. I glossed over that in the knowledge that it may get us out of covid rules and also that the risk would be shared by 95% of the population, so at least we would all be fkd.
But I also found the politics surrounding the vaccine abhorent and very contradictory from people who normally preach autonomy over one's own body. Stuff like vaccine passports was outrageous really, particularly as we knew it didn't prevent us passing the disease on.
My Dad, who has numerous underlying health conditions, had the vaccine and got Ill and chose not to have his boosters. That was his choice in my opinion and I don't think he should have faced any consequence for it..as it happens he didnt as he does very little anyway, but some did.
Climate scientists aren't wrong though. And serious attempts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are being seriously hampered by people repeating uneducated idiotic statements like yours.
I was specifically referring to the campaign to urge us to be vaccinated to protect others. The Pfizer vaccine had not been tested on whether it presented transference to others, although we were not made aware of this. Therefore this campaign, during which people who chose not to have the vaccine were vilified as selfish, was not based on science.
If your father had passed it on to one of your children (partially through not being fully vaccinated) and that child suffered consequences (not that I wish that on a little Jimbolina) that would have been ok with you then? I think we both know it would not.
That's your opinion. There are plenty of climate scientists who disagree, so less of the personal insults or the Boss will be after you!
"If" is not science
There are NOT "plenty of climate scientists who disagree". That's rubbish as is your claim I just insulted you. I insulted your statements not you as a person. Most of your statements are complete and utter cobblers. (I can't say 100% but I estimate 99.99%.)
You only hear the news that they want you to hear, so any scientist who disagrees is silenced as they don't have the right narrative.
https://www.skygroup.sky/article/beh...by-tv-says-sky
Posting Permissions