- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3835 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
91 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 453725
Journalism really is a piece of piss. No wonder the Russians can say whatever they want and not be any less credible than our own news sources.
|>>|| No. 453726
I think Gabriel Iglesias once did a stand-up comedy bit where he said he's not afraid of getting kidnapped, because kidnappers don't normally take fat people.
|>>|| No. 453735
Speaking of ARE Scarlett, who's the better patron saint for .gs?
I'm still in the Sarah Millican camp, but Scarlett Moffatt is looking increasingly deserving.
|>>|| No. 453737
ARE SARAH takes it for me, but ARE SCAR takes a very respectable second. Interesting that we've gone straight from Konnie Huq to Carol Vorderman and a couple of mumsy but childless geordie lasses. We've hit our thirties hard, haven't we? For me, the main strike against Scarlett is that she has failed her driving test thirteen times.
Roxanne off of LadBaby might be on the market soon...
|>>|| No. 453738
>and a couple of mumsy but childless geordie lasses
Sarah is a bit past her window, but there's still hope for ARE Scarlett, I think she's only 31.
Well, "hope" is a big word. Then again, fatadmirerlad from a few threads down would probably
wreck that be available in a heartbeat.
|>>|| No. 453747
>The UK could unseat top wine-producing regions Champagne and Burgundy in France due to the effects of climate change, according to a new study.
>The Climate Resilience in the UK Wine Sector study found that rising temperatures over the coming years could make Britain a major player in quality wine production.
>Looking at climate projections, researchers said temperatures in the UK wine-growing regions may rise by 1.4°C by 2040 -- on top of the one degree rise since the 1980s.
>This will mean the amount of sugar in UK grapes would be more consistent with better wine quality and higher alcohol content, they said.
>"Production here in the UK has been able to produce sparkling wines that are of a style that are very similar to those produced in Champagne," said lead researcher Professor Stephen Dorling.
|>>|| No. 453781
Close your eyes and picture a really nice dinner lady who always gives you extra chips. Is she skinny? Is she bollocks. A hug isn't truly comforting if you can get your arms all the way around. .gs deserves a mumsy figurehead who wouldn't hesitate to offer kind words and extra chips.
|>>|| No. 453792
I think we need to go back to realising that obese people are a drain on society. They're costing the NHS millions every year, and obviously their way of being isn't good for the environment either. Not just because they eat more food and exhale more CO2, but it probably also has an impact on things like your car's fuel consumption. Especially if your whole family is fat. Not only will your old Vauxhall Vectra be underpowered and burn more petrol to get up to speed, but you're probably going to buy a bigger car to accomodate your whole family of chubbies.
It shouldn't be fat shaming to state the obvious, as long as it comes from a matter-of-fact kind of place. Instead of telling them everything's A-OK and that they are fine the way they are. They are not.
Myself, I've gained around 2.5 st since the pandemic. I am working to get it back down, because it's not healthy. I am starting to feel the weight in my knees, ankles and foot arches. I can only imagine that it will get worse if I don't start losing weight now.
|>>|| No. 453798
The government should freeze energy bills at current prices but only for people of a healthy weight.
|>>|| No. 453990
>Hateful tweets multiply dramatically as temperatures become more extreme, an analysis of 4bn geo-located tweets in the US has found.
>Scientists logged rises of up to 22% in racist, whale poacher and homophobic tweets when temperatures rose above 42C, and increases of up to 12% when the mercury fell below -3C, according to a study by The Lancet Planetary Health.
>Annika Stechemesser, its lead author and a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said: “We found that both the absolute number and the share of hate tweets rise outside a climate comfort zone. People tend to show a more aggressive online behaviour when it’s either too cold or too hot outside.”
|>>|| No. 454361
A third of laplanderstan is still under water. At least eleven dead, more missing after massive storms hit the Marche region of Italy; six months of rainfall in three hours. Hurricane Fiona landed two feet of water on Puerto Rico causing floods and landslides, power cuts affecting 1.3 million. Nine million people in Japan have been told to evacuate ahead of super typhoon Nanmadol hitting. The Western US is still under a massive heat dome. And our government is accelerating fossil fuel use, going back on the (slight) renewable progress we'd been making.
|>>|| No. 454385
Is it me or has most British and European news utterly failed to report the majority of this?
I try to follow this stuff and the Japan thing had totally passed me by.
|>>|| No. 454388
It's generally mentioned somewhere, on a page off the front, but yes.
100,000 displaced by floods in Nigeria; 300 dead this year, 20 this week. Truss announces plans to grant 130 new offshore drilling licenses in the North Sea.
|>>|| No. 454394
The death of Liz, and the new government of Other Liz, has put all other news on the back burner for several weeks. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan seem to have started a war with each other, and the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan is back with a vengeance. Also, in Leicester, the eskimos and Hindus are all having pitched battles in the streets every night. All these stories have been vaguely nodded to, same as yours, but they've been very easy to miss.
|>>|| No. 454430
The government's new mini-budget announcements have managed to seriously anger the RSPB. "This Government has today launched an attack on nature. We don’t use the words that follow lightly. We are entering uncharted territory."
"We are currently planning a mass mobilisation of our members and supporters."
"If ever nature has needed you, it’s now."
The fucking RSPB. Mad.
|>>|| No. 454431
This government is crap, but the RSPB are the worst kind of upper-middle-class NIMBY scum. The only part of the mini-budget that might actually help ordinary people is the planning reforms, but that's the bit that the RSPB oppose. Fuck people who need somewhere to live, fuck people who need somewhere to work, because I want a nice bit of wetland within driving distance of my house so I can go and look at wading birds.
|>>|| No. 454435
Classlad, I am flushing you down the toilet. You are thick as pigshit and probably from Bath as well.
|>>|| No. 454438
It doesn't help ordinary people if it destroys what little animal habitat is left in this country. I don't get on well with their membership either but they're not wrong on this.
|>>|| No. 454439
The vast majority of birds on the RSPB's "endangered birds" list aren't actually endangered or even vulnerable - their global population is entirely secure, the RSPB have just unilaterally asserted that they're "endangered" based on a subjective assessment of their population in the UK. Most of those birds are non-native and a large proportion have migratory routes that naturally fluctuate over time.
They bemoan the "extinction" of oreolus oreolus, despite the fact that the species is thriving from Portugal to China and from Scandinavia to the Middle East, with the species being classified by the IUCN as of least concern. Oreolus oreolus occasionally migrate through East Anglia and a handful of breeding pairs had settled there, which in the eyes of the RSPB means that the tiny British population of a non-native bird must be preserved at all costs.
The RSPB aren't a conservation group, they're a lobby group for a hobby. They use the language of conservation to justify turning large areas of the UK into artificial habitats for non-native birds. They're entitled to hold their point of view, but the rest of us are entitled to find it laughable.
|>>|| No. 454440
This isn't about building artificial habitats for non-native species, which is a wildly dishonest way to describe re-creating original habitats for species whose migratory routes naturally fluctuate through here, as well as the wealth of other species which thrive in those same habitats. You're doing the same "We could save the planet, but at what cost?" nonsense as fossil fuel economists; there's very little point in building more affordable homes if it's done at the cost of destroying what little biodiversity we have left and turning the country even further into a wasteland. This country being the most nature-depleted of all the G7 nations for, and in the bottom 10% globally. We need that biodiversity for the soil we grow food in, for cleaning the air we breathe and as a buffer against dangerous or disease-carrying invasive species. This shit matters, boiling it all down to "But brownfield sites for homes are too much hassle!" is utterly blinkered.
|>>|| No. 454441
I don't know why anyone still cares about the environment. Nuclear armageddon is going to do us all in long before climate change gets a chance.
|>>|| No. 454442
One of the outcomes of the worsening climate crisis is social and political instability, which generally lead to war.
|>>|| No. 454443
>This shit matters
I'm a non-car-owning vegan who hasn't been on a plane in more than 15 years, but I couldn't give a fuck about what middle class people like to see out of their window. I do care about ecosystem health, but organisations like the RSPB and the Woodland Trust only pretend to care in order to pursue their own parochial agendas.
This country is already an industrial wasteland. It has been for centuries. It's all brownfield. The last bit of "nature" died in this country hundreds of years ago. There isn't an inch of this country that hasn't been radically reshaped by human activity. Anything we might want to "conserve" is no more natural than what we might replace it with.
The Norfolk Broads are completely artificial. In the middle ages, the whole area was a peat bog. The wetlands and navigable waters are entirely the result of hundreds of years of excavation and subsequent flooding. Conservationists like to pretend otherwise, to great political success, but they're preserving a derelict industrial site.
"Ancient woodland" is defined in this country as anything that has been continuously wooded since 1600. I've got furniture older than that. The vast majority of that "ancient" woodland is old managed forestry, every bit as artificially cultivated as a modern forestry block. The biodiversity isn't evidence of untampered nature, it's just the result of dereliction. If you know what to look for, you can see it everywhere in British woodland - the evidence of coppicing and replanting, the bodger's clearings, the ruins of ore hearths and glass furnaces.
I have no objection whatsoever to carefully planning a reserve of genuinely rewilded national parks and green corridors to maintain a healthy level of biodiversity, but that's not what's happening. Spurious arguments about conservation are being used to choke off development at every turn. Brownfield sites are being treated as priceless heritage by people with a Victorian chocolate-box image of Britain. They're trying to preserve a country that exists only in their imagination, as part of a wider agenda that depends on invalidating our actual history.
|>>|| No. 454444
None of that is an argument for concreting over what few places nature is recovering in, and you know it.
|>>|| No. 454445
Have you ever tried to get planning permission for something? Serious question. Conservation arguments are habitually used to prevent development, even on inarguably brownfield sites. You want to build houses on the site of a derelict factory? Well, what about the runoff water from all of those gardens? What about the impact of traffic noise? Have you surveyed the site for newts?
The RSPB are the single biggest impediment to wind power in this country - ostensibly they only oppose wind turbines in "inappropriate" locations, but funnily enough they can't name any appropriate locations.
This study is from the US, but it clearly illustrates how spurious environmental arguments are exploited by NIMBYs to prevent environmentally beneficial development:
|>>|| No. 454446
More drought news. Some chap has filmed a receding water reservoir near him.
|>>|| No. 454447
I'm not sure why you think that's got anything to do a fascist manic throwing nukes around in a conflict that's very much nothing to do with the climate.
|>>|| No. 454448
At no point have I said I agree with not developing on brownfield sites, I even suggested the opposite.
You don't see what modern warfare has to do with fossil fuels or how the prospect of dwindling resources might impact tactical decisions? Really? Please watch fewer James Bond films.
|>>|| No. 454449
>You don't see what modern warfare has to do with fossil fuels or how the prospect of dwindling resources might impact tactical decisions?
Ah, yes, I forgot about how Russia has almost no resources while eastern Ukraine is full of them.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
|>>|| No. 454520
I'm beginning to dislike Thoughty2's climate change denier slant.
|>>|| No. 454522
Thoughty2 is a bit of a hack, he has been caught out many times talking directly out of his arse about shit he has barely skimmed the Wikipedia article for. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
|>>|| No. 454524
There's loads of youtubers who seem to make a generous living just reading wikipedia to a camera. Just look at Simon Whistler, who probably employs half a dozen people assisting him with his drivel. According to his web site, he now has as many as six different youtube channels.
Not sure I'd call him a "media personality" though, as he touts himself on that web site. That's pushing it more than its fair share.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]