I must have blinked and missed it. Who proved its not a natural cycle? And would that be a 1000 year cycle, 10,000, 50,000 100,000? A mllion? How would you disprove that?
I don't know what a 'troll' is but if it's a serious question' then yes it is? Do you really believe the BBC would stage a confrontation in a hotel, in front of other paying guests, as a stunt? Do you believe the family from Leeds, staff etc, were actually BBC actors who were included in this elaborate conspiracy? Do you really believe the BBC would lose the production of 3 shows, cancel the pre-arranged celebrity guests, etc as a stunt. Why would they do that when the show is already incredibly popular, brings in double the figures of the next BBC 2 show and is sold worldwide? If this really is your opinion then you're an idiot ......... if it's not the you're just posting it as some kind of idiotic wind up.
I don't know if anyone's ever told you how much of a rude individual you are. If not, they should have. I am not suggesting there were hoards of people in on this "conspiracy". I would suggest it would take only a handful. Certainly the staff, as you suggest, would not need to be any the wiser. If/when Top Gear returns, with Clarkson at the helm, we'll no doubt see a big rise in viewing figures. If you don't think this kind of thing can happen to boost ratings, then I'm afraid your accusation of idiocy is incredibly hypocritical. Are you familiar with the movie "the interview" which was released a few months ago? If not, I'll let you research it then come back and apologise. Fantastic and outrageous marketing strategy on a much bigger scale than this.
Only people who are rude and hate it when it's thrown back in their faces.......... weren't you being rude calling me a Troll Anyway, how am I being rude ....... I'm simply asking you if you believe that this is a conspiracy? "Really .... you believe that not broadcasting 3 episodes is a good way of improving viewing figures .......... surely no one will be watching " I asked perfectly reasonable questions, how is that being rude? So, you're claiming the BBC have staged all of this just to boost viewing figures? What kind of percentage increase are you expecting when it returns?
Those episodes will still be broadcast, they will catch up. I assume you know about the Interview seeing as you chose to completely ignore it in your response? These things happen, so to refer to someone as an idiot for suggesting it could be the case here is rude. I would have no idea what percentage increase there would be and won't bother guessing, we'll find out though.
Interview? I only called you an idiot after you'd accused me of being a Troll. That's how things work in the grown up world mate, you reap what you sow. Either grow up or accept being regarded as an idiot
Film released a few months ago, as I stated in a previous post. Have a look at it to see the lengths people will go to for marketing reasons, although I'm sure you're already aware of that without needing to research anything at all.
And does the other guy have to give answers to those questions? Jeez, that's ingenious! You could find out people's ideas and views. Has no one else thought of this?
Oh right, I didn't bother to look at it tbh, sounded like the usual conspiracy drivel. You want me to watch an entire movie to decide whether or not you're talking shyte ....... it's not necessary, I can make my own mind up. I just find it incredible that anyone would actually believe the BBC would stage a punch up, lose 3 weeks production etc just to risk gaining a few extra viewers. As you've absolutely no idea how many extras they'll get I'll assume you don't have a clue
You are obviously very naive or, as is more likely, you are trolling as I initally suspected. On that basis I will leave the conversation with you here as you remind me of a stubborn little child and you can't win against that mindset. Evening
The inevitable response of a coward who has no answers and thinks it's time to run away ........ I've seen it a thousand times on these forums No trolling, only questions you have no answer to ..............
Climate change is normal. There is plenty of evidence that supports humans affecting the climate outside of natural models and expectations. Whether its a megavolcano, asteroid or something along the lines of Malankovic cycles, there is always something driving a change in climate. One thing that is always overlooked is that anthropomorphic changes are just as natural. We are actually in an ice age too.
We have a peculiar arrogance to think we fully understand the dynamics of our planet. We've only been around for the blink of an eye, globally significant for even less, and yet we have convinced ourselves that we're responsible for global climate change. Some of the international studies already undertaken have been proved to flawed in some way. Our planet is so complex, there are places we haven't even seen yet, how can we possibly know for certain we are responsible? I'm not saying we aren't responsible but I haven't seen anything that convinces me yet that we are. For me, the jury is still out.
Evidence from rocks, soil, ice etc tell us the conditions of the past and the changes the planet has gone through. The patterns match up with the devolopment and industrialisation of humanity.
