Global warming.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:13:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The important thing is that immigrants who are surplus to requirements *can* then be sent home. A vast improvement over the current/prior situation whereby we are legally obliged to take as many as want to come, in their hundreds of thousands and millions, whether we have jobs or homes for them or not. Only an incorrigible 'remoaning minnie' like yourself would have a problem with this pragmatic, common sense approach.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/01/2018 21:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Wrong. An immigrant has been granted the right to live here. They have been approved by the UK government and they are unlikely to change that status and send the home.
But thanks for demonstrating what I said.

No difference at all when you actually work out the truth. Not that you will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:01:02 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
[snip ignorant bigotry]
In your tiny mind only, I suspect.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/01/2018 22:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Nothing I said was bigotry. You must be reading your own post.

You just don't know the difference between immigrants and migrants. A hint..
the EU ones are migrants they don't need to immigrate to be in the UK.
The majority of "foreigners" are immigrants which the UK government allows in and they can't send the back as they have been given the right of residency. That is what immigration is about.
Then there are refugees which are neither of the above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why would immigrants want to come here from the EU if there wasn't work for them and they couldn't find somewhere to live?
Unless you have been reading The Express again. Where all immigrants get immediate welfare and housing from the state. Although even they changed their tune to immigrants taking jobs from UK born.
--
*Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And even more who think by looking out of the window they know what the climate is doing world wide.
--
*England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TW3 (from the 1960s) "The whole of Britain was hit by snow today. Here is a picture of snow outside the Newsroom window."
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/01/2018 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:

I've just read the first three of those 'revelations'. Each one is a childlike misrepresentation.
For example, the first (1990 IPCC report) fails to mention the margin of error. Or the most fundamental projection (+1C by 2025). It's not as if the report didn't contain enough errors elsewhere ;-)
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have to accept that very few 'climate alarmists' on this NG will read, much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists who hold alternative views (and there are plenty of them).
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/01/2018 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:

Ouch :-)
I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to support anything I say, or claim any expertise.
Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1 (supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do manage to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited pretty quickly and retract.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/01/18 08:57, RJH wrote:

Then why are you cpommenting at all.

Well no, they are not.
That is just more faklse news.
I put a monograph out about renewable energy using a name I had *never used before on the internet* .
Back in around 2011.
Within a day a blog reported thet the 'well known climate demnier author XXX XXX had been thoroughly discredited years before'
That was enough to tell me that there exist on te internet people whose JOBS are to discredit anyone who isn't singing from their hymn sheet.
Sites like skeptikalscience.com and desmogblog are sites set up to do just that.
Shout down and lie about what is going on. Ther is big big money in climate change - trillions of dollars worldwide, and there is plenty of loose change to buy bloggers and scientists up.
A professor admitted to me 'we actually wanted to do the job of researching efficient coal combustion, but we couldnt get a grant till we mentioned that it would enable 'carbon capture' to be done more easily, if next to impossible is easier than completely impossible, anyway'
The money flows into 'climate change'. No one funds the truth. Who gives a fuck about the truth, what we want is profits and to rape consumers?
http://vps.templar.co.uk/slideshow.php?picture rtoons%20and%20Politics/climate-scare-machine-800.gif
--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/01/2018 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is there supposed to be a link? I'd be interested to read.

Well, yes - certainly commercial (tobacco, ICE vehicle, alcohol) and political (China and Russia say) interests will set up quite sophisticated, and damaging, online presence. In fact almost anything where big money is involved - including renewables.

And there's trillions going the other way.
You may be irritated by what you see as the waste of renewables, misdirection of resources, the intellectual elite's support, and (I'd guess) the most important - the way climate trends might put this country at a competitive disadvantage (compared to the US, India, and to a significant but reducing extent, China). But the counter also has traction - and it isn't a truth/lie binary.
Even if you don't accept depleting natural resources and CO2 doubling can have climate-related consequences I can find very good reasons to consume less in any event. But another story, maybe.

I can believe that.

Dramatise a crisis :-)

OK - I see the point (apart from the media section - more drama). But welcome to capitalism. Rationality has shifted from a pro-carbon world. It'll shift again.
--
Cheers, Rob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Incidentally, peer reviewing is no guarantee of quality. I have peer reviewed in my own field in a small way, and have encouraged the journal editor who used my services to reject papers that I considered of poor quality. But I've also seen papers published in other journals covering a similar field that I would certainly have rejected, but they got published.
I would agree with your implication that many blogs are pretty awful when it comes to climate science (or possibly any other science, for that matter). But there are a some that are not, especially those run by scientists, climatologists in some cases, who find that the traditional outlets for their views are blocked by hostile peer reviewers who hold different views and journal editors anxious to toe the party line. Some of the contributors to those blogs are well qualified and very capable of dissecting any poor science that gets published in the peer-reviewed journals, and they do.
Put another way, there's a massive political agenda running in parallel with the science of climate change that militates against any scientist from publishing anything that goes against the established view. This means that those scientists have to resort to un-reviewed publications such as blogs or books, to get their views heard at all.
But not being peer reviewed doesn't mean that those views are rubbish, as is often implied.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20/01/18 08:34, Chris Hogg wrote:

+1
In essence you can tell a climate alarmist because in the end all they understand is what someone in 'authority' has told them. So they talk about 98%, consensus, peer reviewed papers etc etc.
This is not the language of science, but of propaganda. This is Bandar Log "we all say it, so it must be true".
The so called 'deniers' talk about the science, and appeal to the data and the facts and the maths and the statistics and shake their heads.
This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can remember since I was a boy in the 50s. And yet all the thermometers in places where towns have grown up around them will tell scientists who weren't even BORN in the 50s that its warmer!
--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark, but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year. Then again, it varies too much by region to make subjective evidence useful for those of us who have moved.
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.
--
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of
poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In Leeds there was a fortnight of freezing fog, and for two weeks we didn't see the street lamps, let alone the sun. There was three inches of frost on every twig.
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Solar panels would have worked a treat, then, eh?
--
Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and Hell
where they already have it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably not - but I do have to grudgingly support smokeless zones in the context.
--

Roger Hayter

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I collected my scooter from St Albans early '63. It had been sent down from home via a carrier. And well remember driving it very carefully to London over packed snow. On a main road.
'76 or '77 also had an unusual amount of snow. Had great difficulty driving to work and was over an hour late despite leaving home early. But that didn't last for long.
--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.