Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

GD4XXX

Members
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About GD4XXX

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Onchan
  • Interests
    Tech stuff, classic lit, classic cars

Recent Profile Visitors

605 profile views
  1. Thanks for posting that picture. One thing we do agree on now I've had the opportunity to actually see it for myself is that it's not the least bit funny. But I still don't see how it could be considered racist.
  2. I don't understand how you infer it was racist? I can't get my head around that at all.
  3. On the contrary, it sounds totally hilarious. Does anyone have a link to the image they could post?
  4. Outrage? Surely in this day and age we all enjoy the basic right to freedom of expression??
  5. Yes, and neither of them have any royal blood. Harry is the fruit of another man's loins. A certain army major to be more specific.
  6. I believe it comes down to the precise nature of these "chemicals" and neither you nor anyone else has informed us thus far as to what they actually were. I speculated at the outset that they may have been harmless hydrocarbons which certainly can become unstable and explosive after years of storage due to the formation of peroxides and given the circs as described it would be barbaric to imprison someone just for having some 20 year old kerosene they never got round to getting rid of. Same thing happened over in Sellafield not long ago and even they had to call the bomb squad in to deal with it. So forget the air pistol. It's all about the precise nature of these "chemicals" and what - if anything - the bloke intended to do with them. Has he been charged with any offence?
  7. Raising taxes on fuel and phasing out oil and gas is only approaching this non-existent problem from entirely the wrong direction. Those of us of a certain age will remember the slogan, "plant a tree in '73"- but why only in 1973? Shouldn't they have repeated the tree-planting mantra over and over EVERY year, and be STILL repeating it to this day? The reason why they didn't proceed with this is because this simple, common-sense solution didn't enable them to raise taxes. It didn't provide a plausible excuse for doing so. Politicians have extremely limited imaginations. They're so lazy and incompetent that fiddling with tax rates and 'banning things'- is invariably all they come up with. PATHETIC. No vision at all.
  8. Yeah, and the only thing that can reverse the process, we are told, is higher taxes. No money to be made from planting more trees (the simplest and most effective solution).
  9. The whole point I have been trying to make is that all this guff you point to on the internet cannot be trusted. The sources are compromised to conform to the climate-change agenda. We are living in a post-truth world and if you want the FACTS about anything controversial, you'll struggle to find it on the internet. You have to consult physical, printed hard copy published before 1960 when this AGW nonsense first started to rear its head.
  10. Burning fossil fuels does increase the CO2 levels in the air of a closed room. In the wider world, however, the increase in C02 due to fossil fuel burning is balanced by its removal by plants, trees, shrubs, woods and rain forests. Surely that's obvious? Or are you trolling me?
  11. The relevance /context is given in the preamble just above the link.
  12. Nope. That refers to rooms in a building.
  13. What do the global warming brigade claim the current level of CO2 is? - 400ppm. What was the level of CO2 back in the early years of the 20th century? - 400ppm. The exact same: For the innumerate among us, 0.04% = 400ppm See bottom of page 153: https://archive.org/details/compendiumofchem00arnorich/page/152 Year of publication: 1914. That is the first and last piece of evidence spoon-feeding I'm prepared to do for the benefit of the ignoratti here on this subject.
  14. Expert consensus my arse. If there were a true scientific basis for AGW, it would not have been necessary for the University of East Anglia to fabricate the results of their research to please the corrupt Globalists who funded it. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Got caught out very nicely, they did. And their specious lies are just the tip of a giant iceberg of falsehoods and deceit that prop up this giant scam. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained constant at 400ppm now for well over a hundred years. And I can prove it, probably not to your satisfaction so I won't even bother to try. But if anyone else wants to see some real evidence on the subject, it I'm happy to oblige. You made the mistake of obtaining all your disinformation from the mainstream media and the internet. If you want to know the truth - which YOU clearly don't, then you have to refer back to physical hard-copy printed before the advent of the climate change Agenda, and that means pre 1960 textbooks and studies. I keep a massive collection of old reference books because 99% of the c/r/a/p you read on the internet is tainted, slanted and utterly untrustworthy. Some day when all the physical books no longer survive, we will have nothing but online sources to refer to - and we'll be totally screwed. (Not that you care, so just go back to sleep.)
  15. He may well have done, but it goes back a lot further than Icke. It may even be in the Art of War quite possibly, but one of the great philosophers of all time gave his name to it: the Hegelian Dialectic.
×
×
  • Create New...