Climate Emergency - Why has it taken so long..............

[Bill 1,788]

21 minutes ago, Deptford Yellow said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58130705

This scares the **** out of me

not as much as the stupid righties who still deny it is happening

"Adverts on Facebook denying the reality of the climate crisis or the need for action were viewed at least 8 million times in the US in the first half of 2020, a thinktank has found.

The 51 climate disinformation ads identified included ones stating that climate change is a hoax and that fossil fuels are not an existential threat."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-denial-ads-on-facebook-seen-by-millions-report-finds

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, Herman said:

The video from the back of the Greek ferry was an eye opener too. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58135753

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57846200

"climate hoax................master knows best......four legs good..............baa baa "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57535203

in the face of such worldwide global evidence, what causes some to still deny this, covid or that vaccination works /

what level of stupidity or mental illness has these righties spouting the sh ite they do ?

 

 

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

not as much as the stupid righties who still deny it is happening

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature 

 

The desire to reduce such an important topic to a the usual pathetic polarised debate does this board and more importantly the subject matter no justice, but sadly typical.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature

more misleading nonsense from Barbi wink

it was for years a mainstay of right wing politicians, as fat boy had

"The London Mayor cast doubt on the effectiveness of wind farms as he argued Britain should be doing more to exploit the potential of shale gas. He even suggested that people might be able to conduct controversial exploration for shale gas in London"

their views on climate change like brexit have only quietened as the obvious threats both pose grow daily

though it is interesting to note how Barbiwink seems so desperate to defend fellow righties

if it walks like a duck....etc

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

3 hours ago, Herman said:

The video from the back of the Greek ferry was an eye opener too. 

Like something out of a disaster movie.

[Herman 9,765]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature 

 

Unfortunately denial was not just cranks, but was a well funded misinformation campaign paid for by people involved in the fossil fuel and assorted industries, aided and abetted by media and "think tanks".

Remember Nigel Lawson being given equal amounts of airtime as climate scientists? It wasn't that long ago. That sort of "balance" destroyed any chance of us actually doing something about it.

[Bill 1,788]

Just now, Herman said:

Unfortunately denial was not just cranks, but was a well funded misinformation campaign paid for by people involved in the fossil fuel and assorted industries, aided and abetted by media and "think tanks".

Remember Nigel Lawson being given equal amounts of airtime as climate scientists? It wasn't that long ago. That sort of "balance" destroyed any chance of us actually doing something about it.

It also swayed the argument, as there was considerable weight put behind the 'argument' that it was just scaremongering put out by 'tree huggers' and so should be dismissed, not treated as a serious subject.

The same level of misrepresentation Barbiwink is trying to do with his guff about "Global warming denial was for years a crank minority ".

Something that points easily to where he is coming from, and his pretence at being concerned

But then this is all a 'bit of sport' as he stated some while back, so take his nonsense with a pinch of salt as it is never more than provocation to gratify some sad need.

"

[Van wink 2,994]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Unfortunately denial was not just cranks, but was a well funded misinformation campaign paid for by people involved in the fossil fuel and assorted industries, aided and abetted by media and "think tanks".

Remember Nigel Lawson being given equal amounts of airtime as climate scientists? It wasn't that long ago. That sort of "balance" destroyed any chance of us actually doing something about it.

Denial of course has been funded by those who are invested in fossil fuel, the problem though is that historically climate science did to some extent require a "leap of faith", I was studying issues around global warming, more related to ozone depletion, back in the late seventies early eighties, at the very same time that many were worried that the oil was going to run out. How things have changed.

[Bill 1,788]

7 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature

30/40 year consensus, a crank minority pursuit.... my arz

your lot have spent the past 30/40 years denying climate change

"The UK’s most influential conservative thinktank has published at least four books, as well as multiple articles and papers, over two decades suggesting manmade climate change may be uncertain or exaggerated.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has issued publications arguing climate change is either not significantly driven by human activity or will be positive. The group is one of the most politically influential thinktanks in the UK, and boasts that 14 members of Boris Johnson’s cabinet, including the home secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor, have been associated with the group’s past and current initiatives"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/thinktank-climate-science-institute-economic-affairs

"its foreword suggested the public had been “taken in” by media coverage of climate change and that investing resources in studying the subject was wasteful"

unlike the rightwing covid vaccination denying nutters, these dangerous cranks will not kill themselves only, but will take us all down with them - in order to adhere to their belief that 'master knows best'

barbiwink, may post under various names, but the message is always the same

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Yes, great idea. Let's destroy the 30/40 year consensus that was growing and make this a left/right/party political issue.  That will solve the problem.

Global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit and because of that we made progress.  Let's not go down the division route and instead let us all agree that we need to up the rate of change. And if we dont let's agree that the only rate of change that will increase is global  temperature 

 

You would thought that this was one issue that the vast majority of us (both locally and globally) could unite around but when I read disingenuous nonsense such as the above I realise that we are still a long way off this, and in fact are probably never going to reach what you would assume to be the automatic response to an existential crisis.

The idea that there has been a 30/40 year consensus is risible, as is the idea that 'global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit' - of course there have always been some cranks around but they were never the problem. In fact I clearly remember that 30\40 years ago, environmentalists as we tended to be called then were the ones that were portrayed as cranks, and even in recent years whilst campaigning for the Green Party it is pretty clear that perception still exists in large numbers.

But the serious global warming deniers\climate change sceptics have always been highly organised, very well funded and sadly pretty successful. The funding, and the some extent the organisation has come from certain obvious and well-known big businesses whilst the implementation of their campaigns has been overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, through right wing politicians and political parties -  and all of that continues to this day albeit with gradually diminishing traction. It nevertheless still presents a huge and important inertia precisely in those areas where we need the most rapid and radical change, so the idea of a consensus existing is wishful thinking in the extreme.

I realise that you always shy from a political discussion especially when you find yourself on the wrong side of an argument but this totally undermines your possibly well meaning platitudes - you say that we have made progress and yes we have to an extremely limited extent and far too slowly. But that we have made any progress at all is almost entirely down to concerned individuals and campaigning organisations around the world rather than actions by governments. In fact in many countries, of which the UK is one, progress has been made despite the Government trying to undermine progress rather because the Government has assisted never mind driven it.

Problem is that admirable as the efforts of individuals, charities, campaigning organisations etc are they simply have no chance whatsoever of making the radical changes required with the speed that is required. Only governments, and nearly all of them acting in concert, have the ability to do what is required and for that reason alone this crisis is intensely political because only the politicians can make a real difference. We, and they, have known what had to be done and pretty much when it had to done by (although it turns out we were slightly over-optimistic on that front) and the reality is that in terms of governmental action worldwide virtually no progess been made. Even now despite all the current chatter and the stark evidence of environmental catastrophes happening all around us most governments are still demonstrating their total cluelessness about the scale of the challenge we all face.

We cannot unite around the cluelessness, indecision and inaction shown by our own government and many other governments around the world so what other option is there other than trying to replace the utterly useless politicians that we are currently cursed with by some that may do better?

But sadly this is all rather academic - interesting that the IPCC report tries to launch with a headline that 'it's not to late' - I guess they had no choice as a last throw of the dice to try and motivate world leaders to at try and mitigate some the worst effects. But look at the details and you will see, as I said when I started this thread, that it is already too late - quite a bit too late actually even after a very small helping hand of a 6% drop in emissions last year, the first year we've seen a drop for something like 70 years. But it turns out to be literally a 'drop in the ocean' and something that would need to be repeated every year from now on for decades to make a real impact and that is simply not going to happen.

Anyway, you may or may not be interested to know that I'd almost written a much longer response than this when very frustratingly the PinkUn somehow managed to chuck it away - not sure how, they must have global warming denier on the software team 😃

So I went out and planted half a dozen trees - an even more microscopic drop in an even bigger ocean but it calmed me down a bit and means that you get a shorter and hopefully more civil response than if I managed to complete my first attempt. 😃

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

The idea that there has been a 30/40 year consensus is risible, as is the idea that 'global warming denial was for years a crank minority pursuit' -

This is my perception.   You have some years on me but from my experience I think it pretty safe to say that virtually no one under 35-45 would consider climate change denial as being anything other than in the 'the royals are a lizard family who caused 9/11' category. I doubt many people in the older categories, without the benefit of a post earth summit education, would deny the reality either, but that is, I accept,  speculation on my part

I would imagine too  that near consensus in the academic world was reached long before the end of the 80s. Certainly by the 90s this was taught as fact and not theory.

But all this is a side show stuff.  My point was that of we are serious about change (and we must be)  let's not polarise the issue.   Left/right/whatever all sides can agree on this one.

 

Or....

 

Let's have another pink un fight!  It's been at least two minutes since the last one.. fight,fight,fight!

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Van wink 2,994]

42 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

“even in recent years whilst campaigning for the Green Party it is pretty clear that perception still exists in large numbers.”

 

 

Good on you CM and I hope you managed to change some minds. I don’t have the first hand experience that you have but personal view is that many are worried about climate change but can’t find a way to register that view within the confines of our current political system. I voted Green last time round but in the knowledge that essentially my vote would be wasted. 

 

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

I've said this before on here, but it bears saying again and again.

One very simple, but useful thing that people can do is to change their internet search engine to Ecosia.  Every day billions of people just use Google like sheep, but there's no law saying you have to!

Ecosia use the money they make from ads associated with their searches to plant trees all over the world. Presently 130 million and counting. 

Change today. 

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I've said this before on here, but it bears saying again and again.

One very simple, but useful thing that people can do is to change their internet search engine to Ecosia.  Every day billions of people just use Google like sheep, but there's no law saying you have to!

Ecosia use the money they make from ads associated with their searches to plant trees all over the world. Presently 130 million and counting. 

Change today. 

Yep changed some time ago, following someone mentioning it on here, possibly you 👍

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

11 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Yep changed some time ago, following someone mentioning it on here, possibly you 👍

Excellent (it was me 🙂 ). 

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

You would thought that this was one issue that the vast majority of us (both locally and globally) could unite around ...

 but it calmed me down a bit and means that you get a shorter and hopefully more civil response than if I managed to complete my first attempt. 😃

You do know that we agree on 99% of this dont you?

We agree that more needs to be done, and as soon as possible.

We also agree that this is something we can all unite on. 

The way I see it the biggest threat to progress is us dividing on this. A united front will see politicians outbidding each other to do more.

On the big scale Bill won't set any national agendas and I know he is only posting forma reaction but I really don't like characters like him  (on either side) exploiting this for their own gain and encouraging people to take a side if one of those sides is denial.

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

11 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

This is my perception.   You have some years on me but from my experience I think it pretty safe to say that virtually no one under 35-45 would consider climate change denial as being anything other than in the 'the royals are a lizard family who caused 9/11 category'. I doubt many people in the older categories, without the benefit of a post earth summit education, would deny the reality either, but that is, I accept,  speculation on my part

I would imagine too  that near consensus in the academic world was reached long before the end of the 80s. Certainly by the 90s this was taught as fact and not theory.

But all this is a side show stuff.  My point was that of we are serious about change (and we must be)  let's not polarise the issue.   Left/right/whatever all sides can agree on this one.

 

Or....

 

Let's have another pink un fight!  It's been at least two minutes since the last one.. fight,fight,fight!

 

I've no interest in a fight but you are so wrong (on all points actually) that I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer than I thought I did in my last post without appearing somewhat.....erm....confrontational?

Let start at least with a point of agreement - there is probably very climate change denial amongst the under 35s (under 45s is pushing your luck I would suggest). But the under-35s are a very small proportion of the electorate and none of the government, certainly the cabinet I would guess are under 35. So the majority of voters and the government itself are of an age when climate change denial was relatively common, and despite your speculation, I'm afraid it still is or was until very recently.

I know how much you dislike Bill but he recently posted some factual and telling points about some leading conservative think-tanks which demonstrate this very clearly.

Likewise this academic consensus has never been achieved and most definitely not in the 80s, I'd say you are 3 decades out to even get close to a consensus - which links directly to your rather foolish remark about it being side show stuff which it most definitely isn't - as usual you ignore bits of post you find inconvenient so I'll say it again. Since the 70s a range of big businesses, oil and gas obviously but also aviation, petro-chemicals, car manufacturers etc have conducted highly organised and well funded campaigns which largely depended upon directly funded or sponsoring academics and scientists to discredit the emerging climate science. They were never very successful in a scientific sense but they were certainly successful enough to muddy the waters and provide cover for those who already held those views, and as I said those efforts still continue to this day, not so much at outright denial nowadays but still to negate the real impact of climate change and what action is required to combat. Let's not forget that it is only a couple of years that the President of the US was denying that climate change was man-made and pulling the US out of the Paris agreement. And it isn't just a case of trying to cast doubt on the scientific arguments either some of those businesses can taken very direct action, such as buying up companies and/or patents in order to stifle innovation in areas that might threaten the dominence of the internal combustion engine or oil as an energy source. Again they have been very successful in a number of areas - I think advances in battery technology were stiffled for at least 20 years until ironically the demand for improved battery technology for consumer gadgets broke the deadlock of the car manufacturers and laid the groundwork for the batteries that now power our cars.

If we are serious about change, and yes a lot of us are then it is inevitable that we polarise the issue - not between left and right but between those who are serious about change and those who are not, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but they are still an awful lot of people who are not - some of whom are actually directly opposed to it and a lot more who know it is socially and politically expendient to support change publically but in practice want to keep change to an absolute minimum and for preference none at all.

As soon as you want to talk about enabling or enacting change then you are back to talking politics and this in this country with its dysfunctional two party system, left and right. Personally I think those terms are as out of date as the rest of our rotten system but it seems to be de rigueur that all discussions on politics are centred round 'left' and 'right'.

Anyway I guess this is where the fight starts because whether you like or not, and I'm pretty sure you don't, as soon as you ignore all the dross that most of our politicians speak and focus on what they have done or are currently doing then in this country at least a very clear picture emerges and it is one in which the 'left' demonstrates a belief in and implements actions to combat climate change and the 'right' demonstrates a disbelief or disinterest in climate change and either ignores it or actually dismantles it.

And before you get your speculating or theorising head on let you just throw a few cold hard facts your way:

Between 2008 & 2010 the last Labour government launched a series of initiatives were pretty forward looking, for thos country anyway although we were still several years behind some of the continental European countries. The aim was twofold, i.e. to give a huge boost to renewable energy as a means of cutting carbon emissions and to establish the UK as a market leader in renewable and all the jobs and other economic benefits that could have brought us. And actually I'm being a little unfair because although we were behind Europe in solar and wind the UK scheme included other technologies such as heat pumps, biomass, anaerobic digesters, even combined heat and power if anyone got it going properly plus district heating etc, so in many ways it was a really good scheme on a lot of levels which could have genuinely have made us a major player in renewable energy.

As it was only the solar and to a lesser extent the wind really got going before David Cameron's government quite quickly slashed the schemes such solar or dropped them altogther on spurious pretext on the subsidy element being too onerous on energy consumers whilst strangely keeping in place the vastly larger subsidies being handed out to the oil and gas companies.

To add insult to injury (or is it the other way round?) they effectively banned onshore wind installations which were, and still are, the most easily installed and cost effective form of renewable energy in this country.

Scroll forward a few years and we have a classic Tory Britain first - Theresa May/HoC is the first PM in the world to declare a climate emergency and then having declared an emergency proceeds to do absolutely nothing about it. Some people might think that it is a pretty strange thing for a Prime Minister to believe that their country is facing an emergency but not think it is necessary to take any action - I am one of them.

Scroll forward to the present day and we now have Johnson who has spouted plenty of vague b*llocks about the climate emergency which he clearly neither understands or have any intention of carrying out but hang on - I said ignore wht they said and look at what they've done. OK, well as far as climate change is concerned he has done absolutely nothing positve but he is actively trying to make our situation worse by opening up new oilfields and coal mines. This is not just bad news for the UK, it is a disaster for the COP 26 conference which we are supposed to be organising and hosting whereas what Johnson is actually doing is giving the finger to whole global climate change effort and providing cover to other like-minded leaders to do the same.

  That is why we are polarised, nothing to do with 'labels' and everything to do with what our leaders do and don't stand for.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Creative Midfielder

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

 

Good on you CM and I hope you managed to change some minds. I don’t have the first hand experience that you have but personal view is that many are worried about climate change but can’t find a way to register that view within the confines of our current political system. I voted Green last time round but in the knowledge that essentially my vote would be wasted. 

 

 

Me too, but I came to the conclusion some time ago that it was also wasted if I voted for something I didn't believe in and who may also lose anyway.

As you say our system mitigates very strongly against a variety or 'new' political views - this may not be the only reason but I've believed for a long while that it is a significant factor in us having only two major parties and both of very low calibre - ironically this is one situation where the consumer, sorry voter, having a genuinely wider choice would result in a much healthier system and would certainly force both the Tweedle Dees and Tweedle Dums to up their game.

[Barbe bleu 826]

10 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I've no interest in a fight but you are so wrong (on all points actually)

  That is why we are polarised, nothing to do with 'labels' and everything to do with what our leaders do and don't stand for.

 

 

I'm not sure I am wrong at all, but let's agree on some things:

Climate change is real, caused by us and we need to take measures to prevent rapid progression.

Governments, this included, need to do much more

Scientists agree this is real

The younger generations do not see a debate.  They accept the truth of the situation.

I don’t like labels being put on things.   I came into this debate when Bill did precisely that, he tried to build a fault line because he is on here only for the fight (yes I aware that I have reacted to that provocation). My general impression is that when we fight over labels and divide society we lost focus on the real issue but when we have consensus and present a united front things happen.  

By the way my 35-45 range was based on people receiving schooling post 1992 Rio earth summit when the whole world largely agreed this is a real issue and a danger.   I think the number of deniers in this group and younger is very small. If it helps I could agree to 'under 40' but at that point it becomes rather silly.

I should also say that I think the scientific consensus (ie the general agreement, not a complete absence of dissent)was built earlier than 1992.  I imagine that if you followed the academic literature back to the mid to late 80s you'll probably find that the theory had become accepted and that the focus was instead on comparative effect of anthropogenic CO2 release against 'natural' processes, with the majority of papers concluding we are the most significant factor. I am not sure why any environmentalist would want to disagree, surely this opinion/observation just emphasises how slow we have been to 'follow the science' thus far?

Thing is we agree almost completely on this. I am leaving it there or else this becomes the fight I started by saying I thought was incredibly unhelpful. 

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

13 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

You do know that we agree on 99% of this dont you?

We agree that more needs to be done, and as soon as possible.

We also agree that this is something we can all unite on.

Unfortunately I don't think we do, granted we agree that more needs to be done and as soon as possible but that is an almost universal truism now, outside of some of the remaining vested interests and some pretty wacky conspiracy theorists, so doesn't really take us very far.

I suspect we diverge widely, both on the past and the likely future - the reasons why we are already so far adrift of where we shoud be and needed to be in tackling climate change and also the reasons why the really urgent and radical changes that need to happen from now on are not going to happen. Some change will come but it will continue to fall far short of what is required in both speed and ambition - there is a long track record of countries very slowly making unambitious agreements and commitments, which even in their limited form have not been delivered in many cases. The events of the last two or three years may inject a little more urgency into the process this year but I see nothing whatsoever to suggest there is going to be the sort of dramatic global change of attitude that is required to make any significant progress.

So yes, we may be able, in theory, to unite around this issue but that is unfortunately another rather obvious truism when our theoretical unity has no practical outlet or consequence. Unity amongst our citizens is obviously highly desirable for many reasons but in the context of climate change it is meaningless unless that unity can be translated into an effective political process and radical action at both the national and international level.

In the UK (as an example and the country we both know best though there are certainly other similar examples) we simply don't have any of the basic ingredients for that to happen. And frankly if you at look at the international situation it is equally as bad - yes, there a lot of countries who want to co-operate but if you look at the big hitters, the really key countries, there is virtually no unity whatsoever on climate change specifically and downright antagonism in general in the relationships between several of them.

I'm afraid it is an existential crisis which makes Brexit and Covid seem trivial by comparison and yet it has been largely ignored until it was too late to mount an effective and unified global response to it.

Strangely I think the penny starting to drop amongst politicians worldwide about just how serious this crisis is, will actually make any real unity more difficult than ever to achieve. What I suspect we are more likely to see is a Covid style response where the rich and powerful countries scramble to mitigate the effects on their own citizens and abandon the rest of the world to their fate - any climate scientist worth their salt can explain why that will actually result in a disaster for everyone but most of the politicians will have stopped listening again long before that happens.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Creative Midfielder

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

16 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I've said this before on here, but it bears saying again and again.

One very simple, but useful thing that people can do is to change their internet search engine to Ecosia.  Every day billions of people just use Google like sheep, but there's no law saying you have to!

Ecosia use the money they make from ads associated with their searches to plant trees all over the world. Presently 130 million and counting. 

Change today

Never heard of ecosia, so I googled it

I'm in 😊

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

58 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Never heard of ecosia, so I googled it

I'm in 😊

Excellent - keep spreading the word. 🙂 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Excellent - keep spreading the word. 🙂 

Yes, absolutely - have been using it for several years now and its a perfectly good search engine which gets trees planted.

It has the further benefit of not being Google - it really is extremely difficult to stay completely out of Google's clutches nowadays but a Firefox browser with an Ecosia search engine is a pretty good start. 😃

[Herman 9,765]

Every little helps I suppose.🤨

 

[horsefly 4,300]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

Every little helps I suppose.🤨

 

Oh the irony!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

On 09/08/2021 at 22:49, Thirsty Lizard said:

Excellent (it was me 🙂 ). 

Been on it since you mentioned it.

[Herman 9,765]

Good opinion piece reiterating what has been written.

 

[Well b back 3,207]

If verified the hottest ever European temperature was recorded today in Sicily 48.8 degrees.

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

9 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Been on it since you mentioned it.

Nice work KG.