gizmoman

Yes, badly worded, what I meant was, it is hard to argue that cannabis should be legalised, as many do, if you also support this measure.

Got to admit I'm a bit conflicted on this , although at heart I'm a libertarian who thinks the government should keep out of my personal choices, I can see the harm tobacco does and want to protect the young. My 4 daughters all started smoking despite me and my wife being non-smokers and telling them not to smoke, the problem is, if you agree to ban smoking you have to agree to ban cannabis and other recreational drugs as they all have a negative health effect. As it happens, 3 of the 4 have now quit smoking so maybe it's not quite as bad a problem as first appears. Do you really want the government to decide what you should and shouldn't be allowed to consume? Bear in mind alcohol isn't that healthy. Really don't have a strong position on this as nicotine is so addictive and smoking so deadly. Can't see why people should be allowed to buy carcinogenic products.

Saw Nick solo many years ago, was very good, he is in the band, I'll be there (clashes permitting).

Well that's a Guardian article, the irony is The Sun would never have published that.

Virtually all media has some bias, whether they are seeking to influence their readers or simply attract readers is another question, The Sun is undeniably popular so we should be able to monitor what they are saying, that is my position, If you can't bring yourself to see content on The Sun, Mail, GB News etc. then that's fair enough but others may want to see and comment.

Who you have just quoted in order to make a point, I wasn't suggesting we should be reading The Sun for any insight, just that it was O.K. to quote articles for discussion and criticism, I'm certainly not a Sun reader, in fact don't actively look at any news site except BBC, and don't believe half of what they say either! Most of the news stories linked on here seem to come from the Guardian, I seem to read plenty of them without being unduly influenced, have ended up reading Pink News too via links on here, no harm in seeing other views even if they are not as objective and balanced as you would like.

If you don't read the articles how do you know they're bollocks? The point is The Sun is the most popular news site after the BBC so the public at large don't share your disgust, (BTW Hillsborough was 35 years ago tomorrow, many won't even have been born then so sadly it's less of an issue today.) You need to be aware of what is being reported so you know what effect this is having on the people who do read The Sun and Mail, better to read and point out the distortions etc. than to pretend no one has those opinions.

getting downvoted for stating facts? I have upvoted your posts to balance it out.

Just had a look why I didn't see her, clashed with Motorhead AND Wilko Johnson, wisely chose Motorhead, one of their final gigs.

Wow, that's a crazy judgement, Switzerland is a tiny country, global warming is, well, global, even if Switzerland had implemented all these measures sooner it would have made no difference to the weather in Switzerland. Totally political judgement, no logic to it.

That's certainly not light reading! Interesting though, "This study underscores the need for a coordinated stewardship of the northern land sink as part of the climate policy agenda, with the objective to maintain land sinks through favourable land use and enhance them whenever possible." So maybe FH is wrong, and we do need to concentrate up north, or do both. It's certainly not as clear cut as it may appear, who knew this stuff was so complicated! If climate change over the past few decades is part of the driver of the shift in the sinks how does that factor in? if the North gets warmer and the carbon sink increases maybe that will help offset the warming and we will reach an equilibrium. (here's hoping).

OK found the story and the comments, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68716874 FH was replying to this post, "We go on about tree loss in the Amazon yet cut down millions of trees in the UK. Our wildlife is now down to 1 in 4 wildlife species close to extinction. Our biodiversity is one of the most under threat in the world." His Reply, "trees in the UK do 0 for climate change. it is the tropics that are important" "I repeat, trees in Northern Europe and the Northern Hemisphere, do 0 to stop climate change. it is the tropics were they must grow." and "Use ECOSIA as your search engine. It plants tropical trees to replant the forests, as you search, and stop climate change. Use ecosia to help replant the forests and help it get to 1 billion trees asap" So it turns out I was right about his stance, he believes we should be concentrating our efforts on the tropical forests, "and stop climate change" hardly the words of a denier, disagreeing on the solution to the problem is not climate change denial. I can see how his negative reply might annoy some but he could well be right. Not heard of Ecosia before, https://www.ecosia.org/ will give it a try. BTW looked at a couple of other stories but couldn't find him.

Neither link gives any indication as to how much benefit the reforestation will have, there will be some to be sure but whether it will be as effective as action elsewhere is unknown, so it hardly settles the argument, a bit pointless trying to have a secondhand discussion on what someone said somewhere else can you link the original BBC thread so we can see how the discussion actually went?

"I did also write "in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference"" Yes you did but didn't actually link the quotes or who made them so it's hard to know exactly what the conversation was and the relevance, seems crazy on the face of it but quotes taken out of context are hard to judge. "He says clearly that those in the north do nothing for climate change - which is again so very wrong." He doesn't say it will do nothing, he says planting them won't "slow climate change" not the same thing, he presumably means if we keep on cutting down rainforest it won't have the effect hoped for, he may well believe we need to stop deforestation and begin replanting in the tropics, can't judge his position on a few selected quotes. "On this thread there are loads more comments from 'FH', here is another one. Do you agree with him on this?" A quick look at the globe would suggest the UK on it's own will have little effect due to the fact we are such a small area, so no, I don't agree it's zero but it may well be negligible in the overall picture. Again difficult to judge his position on selected quotes, you seem to have selected a few quotes to try to ridicule him, maybe he is a climate denier or maybe he is a realist who is sceptical of quick fixes that make us feel better but won't have the desired outcome, I've no idea, not seem enough of the conversation to judge. Still not seen any science that compares the relative CO2 absorbing capabilities of tropical and temperate trees/areas either so can't really tell how valid his argument is. But this is what we need, logical scientific analysis and debate, not trying to ridicule other views.

Not sure where you have a problem with this, FH seems to be saying you can't replace the rainforest trees being cut down by planting trees in the north, he gives a rational explanation why, if the "northern" trees are not as efficient at absorbing CO2 then things will continue to get worse. Do you have a science based argument why he is wrong?