Mrs Roops

With my customary pedantry I would point out that the current Jet2 fleet comprises of Boeing 737 & 757 variants so no "Cooper switch" which are fitted on aeroplanes with ventral airstairs e.g. the Boeing 727 and some DC9's.

Yes, sponsored by the British Youth Council, MYP's are elected by the nation's youth. The Youth Parliament has several regional sessions around the country and have two national sittings, one of which is held in the HoC chaired by The Speaker no less. IMHO, this charade represents the very worst of gesture politics.

To be fair to 'Baws the image was sourced from the image folder of a bona fide and respectable collectables site which itself has a clean bill of health.

Regrettably, I've removed the image as this a Potentially unwanted Programme (PuP). (Trojan.GenericKD.33016580) Any punter who by chance has saved the image should remove it from their hard drive using the uninstall facility. Better still, download an anti-malware programme (free versions will do the trick) to scan and remove.

This is baby-boomer entitlement. Not content bagging the benefits of the property boom and pensions that are no longer available to younger generations, he clearly feels he has automatic rights to sections of public space. Report him to the Council who, under the Highways Act, will slap a fixed penalty of £100 every time he puts the cones out. For extra vindictiveness drop a line to the local rag newsdesk, they love stories like this.

You're so parochial.

I did previously hint on this when I mentioned "decisive remedies". Here's a thought; did the Africans and indigenous Indians of the Americas have the right idea? They restricted themselves to hunter-gathering and a small bit of subsistence farming. They took from the land only enough to survive. Populations remained comparatively constant. It all went to shit when tribes started to barter with each other.

...and smog has life-enhancing properties, who knew?

Neither "eats" each other, it was clearly stated that methane, far from "eating" ozone provides the building blocks of ozone. 🙄

Can we tone it down please? Being unable to hide one's unconscious bias is one thing but this is not a National Front/BNP discussion forum.

Scientists are paid to do a lot if things, many are paid by corporates and lobbyists to downplay the environmental effects of their client's commercial activities. Whilst Its certain that the world will not end in fourteen years, correcting behaviour that damages the planet will become more problematic as time goes on. 250 years ago the world's population was roughly 700 million people. 200 years later that figure was 3 billion, fifty years later in 2011 that figure had more than doubled to 7 billion. Even with a slow down in population growth (markedly in the western nations) that figure is expected to hit 10 billion by 2083. By any standard that is not sustainable without decisive remedies. One of the problems of large populations with access to mass communications is that soundbites rule and details are brushed aside. Debate concentrates on headlines and if the headlines question an orthodoxy then the messenger is shot down and not much questions are asked later. All to often, individuals who make a careless or unguarded statement are forced to consider their positions. One such person was David Bellamy who made his reputation as an excellent communicator on environmentalism. He was one of the scientists who first raised concerns about global warning. Bellamy's mistake and misfortune was to endorse a study by then renowned physicist and climatologist Fred Singer who himself quoted from a study of 200+ glaciers that showed that the glaciers were advancing and not retreating. It later transpired that the study, allegedly published and peer-reviewed in the Science Journal, did not exist. Bellamy did eventually retract but by then it was too late. One poor oversight on his part and a legacy tarnished forever. As for Fred Singer, well he has form for arguing against the scientific consensus. He argued that there was no evidence that CFC's was damaging the ozone layer and that passive smoking was not connected to cancer. He has since downplayed his stance on global warming describing himself as a climate change sceptic rather than as a climate change denier.

Rather like the medical profession's finest brains failing to convert the anti-vaxxers I 'spose. Still, point taken, though one finds the least informed can be the most incorrigible of all people. Anyway, "syphilitic old idiot" - what's going on here? After reading through your chummy convo with him last night I was ready to set up an on-site Friendzone Club, just for the two of you.

Part of The Corner's remit is to educate and inform, I'll leave the entertainment to the site's funmaesters. 🤡🎈

I'm sorry, but your repeated position was that ozone "eats" methane, now that you realise your assertion was a pile of cack you're quietly deflecting. I've previously concurred that there has been natural climate changes in the past, the difference this time is the unprecedented rate of change due to man indelibly making his mark on the ecosystem from 250 years ago and onwards. Why not actually read the previous posts. Temperatures up to 800,000 years ago can be determined by difference in ice cap strata thickness extrapolated from ice core samples. The properties of low and high altitude were determined in the 1920's. Ozone or trioxygen (O3) as it is correctly known was discovered in the late nineteenth century.

Now you are confusing the properties and effects of low and high altitude ozone (the latter protects the planet from UV rays). There was an issue with the high altitude "ozone hole" which was caused by CFC's and HCFS but a rare episode of world-wide cooperation via the Montreal Protocol led to the banning of certain types of refrigerants and propellants. The ozone is now repairing itself and is at levels similar to levels last recorded in the 1970's. Its expected the ozone hole will be fully repaired in fifty odd years. The amount of Bacofoil you must get through...

No it doesn't, it creates ozone, don't worry you only have to read the first two paragraphs of the link. 🙄 If you can't even get that right... As for the remainder of your specious gibberish, back in October there was a Congressional hearing on global warming and climate change. Included in the expert witnesses were a group of retired Exxon (owners of Esso and Mobil) researchers who, forty years ago, predicted with frightening accuracy the effects of hydrocarbon pollution and this was from oil industry scientists! The petro-chemical industry cover up is making the tobacco industry/cancer scandal look like small potatoes by comparison. In answer to your question, I'm suspicious of everything and question everything in order to make up make up my own mind. Intellectual sheeple like you tend to go for the easiest route, even to the point on gambling on the minority scientific viewpoint or, as I suspect, on press headlines written 15-20 years ago. Finally, I don't buy your conspiracy theory that the Climate Change threat has been engineered for tax revenue purposes. If there were no Green legislation, controls or taxes then industry would forge ahead without any thought for environmental concerns thereby realising greater profits and far greater tax receipts than green fiscal measures could ever hope to achieve.

Excellent, do nothing 'cos an ice age is due in ten thousand years. I had a silent chuckle when I read your latest bar-fly lecture. Having poured scorn on internet generated facts, you then proceeded to spew out same sourced theories and questionable science. Describing your post as misinformation is being charitable. Your misguided holistic solution has its attractions but relying on the planet's balancing mechanism ignores one factor that upsets the scales. Planet earth is roughly four and a half billion years old yet man has been around for only a few million years. Take into account that widespread pollution commenced 250 years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution which correlates with the exponential rate of global warming compared to previous macro-climate changes one can then see that current global warming is man-made where previous ice ages did not have the contributory effects of mankind. You have also misunderstood the complex relationship between methane, CO2 and ozone. To put it as simply as I can, far from "eating" ozone, methane and CO2 create low altitude ozone over and above normal levels which apart from causing respiratory problems actually impede plant growth. At present the loss of half a million square miles (and growing) of existing natural oxygen generating mechanisms is not helping the situation.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to disagree with same...

Not half as weird as Frank & Nancy Sinatra though.

One of the reasons I considered reading statistics was a quote by Mark Twain, That sorta intrigued me - anyone can source and validate facts but the trick is not so much as collecting reliable information but the way data is presented. In the end I played safe and chose a career (albeit a very short one!) as a NHS health professional. Two degrees and an MBA later I also learnt something very valuable, also from Mark Twain - if you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything, but I digress... So, with that in mind and without facts or stats, people should consider this; I don't think anyone would quibble that levels of man-made toxicity found in land, sea and air is harming not only the earth's delicate eco-system but it is also permeating all levels of the food chain. I also think that most people have the common sense to realise what would happen if one sits in a car with the windows rolled up when the sun is shining. So it goes without saying that if mankind chooses to pump man-made gases and other particulates into the atmosphere then slowly but surely heat, especially infra red heat reflected from the earth is going to be trapped. It shouldn't take a genius to work that out.

Interesting, yes. Reliable, no - Alt-right rabble rouser Paul Joseph Watson should always be taken with a hefty dose of salt. Even without the benefit of any formal fact checking, he's made use of a composite earth view of Australia on fire, used rainfall graphs that end in 1990, omitted to say that Australia recorded its highest temperature on the 17th December last and made out that Breitbart colleague James Delingpole is somehow an authoritative commentator on climate change. Unfortunately the mainstream press isn't much use either, though that's more to do with cost-cutting in research and sub-editing rather than any socially engineered and political agenda.

When New Orleans Jazz meets avant-garde Glam Rock... Even now the musical arrangement is contemporary, back in '73 it was way ahead of its time. Then there are the strange lyrics, though it becomes apparent that Bryan Ferry has a jaundiced view of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Currently top of my commuting playlist.

Shameless yet superb scene stealing by clarinettist Charly Jolly. Soprano Heather Loxston aint bad either.

I actually agree with the broad thrust of your POV but don't you think by using such pejorative terms as "Mucky Meg" and "Silly black cunt" you are scoring own-goals in revealing your own unconscious bias?