nauseus

The funniest thing in there was that you actually seem to think that you were debating!

In the open? Disgusting!

... and sprinkles

Well that's true but the (Euronews) story does say that this Prime Minister Croo was speaking to the European Parliament and it also goes in to mention EU policy and concerns about a Trump return. NATO is only mentioned in the context of what Trump allegedly said to von der Leyen way back, but whatever exactly that was, it looks to have been taken out of context. The EU hierarchy got bent out of shape after Trump complained about low defence budgets from some NATO members in the EU, which were less than the agreed NATO level. I doubt that Trump would abandon Europe in case of conflict with Russia - a time to really worry might be if the US left NATO itself. Euronews is evidently an EU-supported political magazine that is anti Trump but if EU/European defences are enhanced by some fear of a Trump return, then fine. However, remember the EU was trying to initiate the formation of its own army a few years ago, so this looks like an opportune time for it to have another go.

Sweden and Finland long preferred to remain neutral - Putin's move into UA changed the mood a bit - nothing to do with Trump.

What a string of spew.

And QATAR thru Doha 680 quid today.

85000 are the miles you need for a normal economy return award on THAI, but I can't see what you have done. What I can see is that you could fly economy with Emirates from Birmingham for £846.27 (same days). If you are in Walsall, then no need to go to London and you could keep your THAI miles for something else.

OK but the data he showed is for a full (miles) award. Not hybrid.

I can believe that. Sad sign of the times,

It's economy. Looks like you have to pay 409 quid to secure the award ticket. Steep I know. The tax was always payable separately with these things but it looks like THAI have increased the weighting on the tax side a lot! I always found it best to visit a THAI office and then sort it out.

Laugh a minute here.

I suppose a baseless accusation could be a type of opinion.

Very dramatic.

Yup. A complete load of polls.

Here we go.

Don't be daft.

Thanks. I guess we can do without the trend line. Early 1990's sudden warming spike was Pinatubo.

Why not split the trend line into pre and post 1996? Even a donkey might see something.

I already wrote: so that overall cooling is much less than pre Y2K. Enough.

Oh I see! Dictation!

Well that's just fine. Of course we are different. Sometimes I won't link if others haven't and I don't see why I should. The same applies to those who interrupt the party late (i.e. yourself) but with no similar criticism of the party I was responding to, who did not provide a link either. I see that as inconsistent on your part. But just for you: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/13/jcli-d-15-0629.1.xml If you go to the final para of section 1 the first sentence reads: "The temperature of the stratosphere has decreased over the last several decades because of the combined effects of increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) and changes in stratospheric ozone". And if you go to the final para of section 4 the first sentence reads: "Model simulations (e.g., Stolarski et al. 2010) suggest that stratospheric temperature changes will evolve in response to changing ozone trends". I have tried to suggest that the recent, relative, warming effect due to ozone recovery is shown in a trend change, so that overall cooling is much less than pre Y2K. Yes, my original wording was poor and could be seen as misleading, but that was not intentional.

You mean that after all this carp you don't know?

Three links, same chart.

Like I said before, the exchange you broke into began with a link-less post. So save your faux outrage for that poster.