@!GoldenKingship! Global temperatures have had fluctuations in Earth’s 4.5 billion year lifespan mostly due to changes in orbit and volcanic activity, so nature could be part to blame. However, placing it *purely* on ‘weather’ is an oversimplification. An increase in sea surface temperatures at 26°C between 5 and 20° north / south of the Equator are the ideal conditions for a hurricane to occur. Its the exact reason why so many of them happen over tropical seas.

*Global warming* and *climate change* are also not synonymous and wasn’t invented by some cult. Gilbert’s 1956 study was even named “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of *Climatic Change*’. While climate change refers to the changes in the global climate resulting from an increase of average global temperature, global warming is a lot more specific.

But I do agree with you on how its been hyperbolised by the media. I despise their use of dramatic music and how they pander to these overemotional individuals. Greta Thunburg is a good example of such. While claiming that she’s 0% in carbon emissions, she boarded an electric yacht constructed of carbon-fibre, which is *14-times as energy intensive* as producing steel. Said material also requires the use of *petroleum and propane*.

It would have been 6 times more efficient if her crew didn’t fly back using a bloody jet too.

@CallMeTruckson Less to the point. I’m talking about the hypocrisy of Thunburg and her claim that she’s ‘zero-emission’. Extremism to the point that you’re not willing to have a multifaceted view on issues like these is problematic and just leads to a ‘fight or flight’ response from others.

Ok thats perfectly fine then lmao

You will need to balance that out with the fossil fuels used to make carbon-fibre and the tremendous amounts of energy required (14 times more to reiterate).

@CallMeTruckson If I think of it as similar to solar panels with regards to its long-term benefits then I would agree. But how long would one have to drive to outweigh the manufacturing disadvantages brought by carbon fibre?

Good point though.

@Dr.Cosby Could you clarify on what you mean by Boris ‘crawling’ for the queen‘s permission? Out of ignorance, I thought it was more of a common formality, as the monarch rarely exercises the royal prerogative against the advice of the PM unless it was an emergency.

Sorry. My module for sensing sarcasm has been lately busted due to a viral infection known as a “cold”. I have sent complaints to my wife and inventor, respectively.

@Pelth `It basically implies that the queen is a mindless being incapable of self thought`
The monarch acts on the advice of ministers so I could argue its less of being ‘mindless’ and more of avoiding jeopardy to her status. While Elizabeth is sovereign, the legitimacy of her rule comes from the people’s will, which is commonly *assumed* to be represented by the elected government. Her refusal could have lead to the removal of her right of veto, similar to the *Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949* with the HoL. She never had the choice to begin with.

`The whole Supreme Court ruling in general is a complete joke`
Agreed. They should be impartial. The Supreme Court has no right get political.

💯

To put it short: God is faek