Tim Streater writes:


What's a particular climate got to do with anything? Climate "science"
appears to claim that (1) the world is heating and that (2) this is
down to human activity.

(1) is ought to be a simple matter of measurement but there appear to
be those who say it is and those who say it isn't.


Anyone can download the raw data and do their own analysis of the surface
temperature record. It's not hard; it's pretty basic math and
statistical analysis. http://berkeleyearth.org/ makes all the data
available as well as the algorithms used to analyze it.

The historical temperature record is pretty extensive in certain
parts of the world (the CET record, for example). In other areas,
historical temperatures are determined as second-order effects from
things like borehole temperatures, deuterium oxide fractions, and other
physical phenomenon that generally track surface temperatures.

All of this is accepted science, backed by research.


(2) is a matter of belief and is therefore a religious question.

I'll simply point you to Arrhenius for the basis of the claim that
the carbon dioxide fraction in the atomosphere has a clear effect on
radiational cooling, in that more CO2 molecules will reflect additional
IR back to the ground rather than letting it radiate back into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

The very definition of Science.


A true scientist is a *skeptic* - skeptical about *everything*.

Indeed, and they gather the data and formulate the theories to
attempt to explain *everything*.

Have you looked at the data? Have you read the research papers?
Or do you just look at websites that match your preconceptions and
ignore the data?

On 6/14/2019 1:22 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:50:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 8:44 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 14/6/19 5:53 am, GB wrote:
On 6/13/2019 11:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:34:39 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 10:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:42:07 +0100, GB
wrote:

There are no unnecessary rules in grammar.* It is what it is.

"It is what it is" says it all - you're a robot that follow rules
without understanding.

What's there to understand?* The grammar is there, you learn it,
end of
****ing story.

No, you use the rules that make sense.* Intelligent people know which
rules are sensible.* "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the
guidance of wise men".

Intelligent people know that the rules of grammar, which have evolved
over MANY years, are a given and are sensible.* If everyone started
making up their own grammar rules, you'd end up without a ****ing
language.

You really haven't studied the English language and literature to any
great depth, have you?

I really have.* Have you?

You really need a hobby.

You really need a life.

On 6/14/2019 1:13 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:00:23 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 3:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:47:24 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 2:24 PM, ARW wrote:
On 12/06/2019 19:56, GB wrote:
On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to
these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car.* The second one is
FAR more
dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/




It's not about safety.* The electrician's union owns more
government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring to?

Did you read his post at all?* He referred to a union, not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all?* They referred
to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's.* Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive.* John's car.* Fred's motorcycle.* The
tree's leaves.* It's doorhandle.

1.* 'It' is a pronoun.* The others are not.* Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like you.

2.* For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life.* You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you? A total loser.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:28:49 +1000, Jimbo, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Newtons Laws and evolution clearly are.

Newton's Laws are not the last word.

You said settled, not the last word.

Doesn't matter!

What d'ye think Einstein's General
Relativity was all about.

You cant ignore evolution, that is indeed settled, even
tho all the detail has not yet been fully elaborated.

Nobody can ignore what an obnoxious, clinically insane, senile pest you are,
Ozzietard!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:27:36 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH the three clinically insane idiots' endless bull****

....and much better air in here again!

--
"GB" addressing psychopathic loser Razovic on Usenet:
"You are so sad and wretched. How could one not feel pity for you? A
foul, loathsome creature, wallowing in your own filth. Never seeing the
light of day. A life utterly wasted."
MID:

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:28:27 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:


You really need a life.

Oh, the IRONY! This coming from the degenerate psychopath who has been
"living" on Usenet for OVER TWENTY YEARS, around the clock!

--
The top 5 truths about poor dumb Razovic, our colostomy bag wearing resident
psychopath, aka "The Rectum":

the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
she can't get out of the house anymore,
she got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
she can't **** anymore,
she got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:32:30 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' endless idiotic drivel

....and nothing's left!

--
Gay anal Razovic about her predilection, on March 23rd 2019:
"Jewish ani? yum!
Sodomised Jewish ani? YUM!!!"
MID:

On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

In iganews.com,
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30 (preferably
more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to be untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to another,
such
as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the current description
happens to be) but the individual climate parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall increased in a
Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That would be true
Climate
Change - not the snowflake version which relies on short term weather
extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the climate has changed.

What's a particular climate got to do with anything?

At least you have proved you know nothing on the subject.

Climate "science"
appears to claim that (1) the world is heating and that (2) this is
down to human activity.

That is a theory, but you have simply read the ignorant MSM which I mentioned
earlier.



(1) is ought to be a simple matter of measurement but there appear to
be those who say it is and those who say it isn't.

I dont think you have been concentrating. Climate is an average of many
many measurements.

The measurements are, for the most part, Weather.

As you seem unable to separate the two - there is no point in going any
further.



(2) is a matter of belief and is therefore a religious question.

Note that if you are a scientist who does not subscribe to this
orthodoxy, you won't get research grants and you will be lucky to get -
or keep - an academic position. Further, you'll be called a "denier",
just as Galileo was called a heretic.

A true scientist is a *skeptic* - skeptical about *everything*.

Is (2) above correct? How should I know, and how should anyone else. We
don't have a means of testing this hypothesis. It is therefore
unfalsifiable and is therefore not science. You can call it what you
like but not science, OK?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Jimbo
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Jimbo
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
et...
In article , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Newtons Laws and evolution clearly are.

Newton's Laws are not the last word.

You said settled, not the last word.

What d'ye think Einstein's General Relativity was all about.

Newton's Laws may be settled, but gravity was not, as Einstein showed.

I didnt say everything is settled, just the Newtons laws and evolution are.

And his work is known not to be the last word, as it doesn't include
quantum effects.

What was being discussed was settled, not last
word. We dont have the last word on the detail
of how evolution happened either, but it is
settled that that is what happened.

And there is no mathematical theory of climate "science", unlike such as
Newton and Einstein. It's too much hand-
waving and statistics to be anything more than a hypothesis.

Irrelevant to whether SOME science is settled.

All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

That was the fool that proclaimed that nothing useful would
ever come out of nuclear physics. He was wrong about that too.

Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it
-
not you, it would seem - will say.


Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.

I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On 15/6/19 4:15 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Xeno
wrote:

On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Then they are not scientists, since any scientific idea has to be
susceptible to being proved incorrect. Note: Any scientific hypothesis
can be proved untrue. It can never be proved true, however; all any
scientist can manage is to provide evidence that supports the
hypothesis.

This has been true throughout history. Time was when it was "settled"
that the Sun goes round the Earth. Dispute that, and the Catholic

Those *theories* were not based on any form of *research*. It was
*empirical research*, and the results therefrom, which debunked those
incorrect assumptions.

Church would threaten to cut your balls off. Then along came Copernicus
and Galileo and others, who demonstrated that accepting that planetary
orbits could be non-circular, and that the Sun was the centre of the
Solar System, could lead to a *much* simpler and *more* *accurate*
picture of the SS. One which, moreover, could make accurate predictions
about where the planets would be in the future, especially when
combined with Newton's Theory of Gravity. But then even the latter was
replaced by Einstein's General Relativity, which works better than
Newton in extreme situations.

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

"Climate scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm a physicist by training.

So you aren't a climate scientist, ok. Noted.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/6/19 5:41 am, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

In , Xeno
wrote:

On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was determined
in the 81 report.

Then they are not scientists, since any scientific idea has to be
susceptible to being proved incorrect. Note: Any scientific hypothesis
can be proved untrue. It can never be proved true, however; all any
scientist can manage is to provide evidence that supports the
hypothesis.

This has been true throughout history. Time was when it was "settled"
that the Sun goes round the Earth. Dispute that, and the Catholic
Church would threaten to cut your balls off. Then along came Copernicus
and Galileo and others, who demonstrated that accepting that planetary
orbits could be non-circular, and that the Sun was the centre of the
Solar System, could lead to a *much* simpler and *more* *accurate*
picture of the SS. One which, moreover, could make accurate predictions
about where the planets would be in the future, especially when
combined with Newton's Theory of Gravity. But then even the latter was
replaced by Einstein's General Relativity, which works better than
Newton in extreme situations.

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

I'm not sure even that any logic is involved in his response.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30 (preferably
more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to be untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to another, such
as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the current description
happens to be) but the individual climate parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall increased in a
Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That would be true Climate
Change - not the snowflake version which relies on short term weather
extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the climate has changed.

If you really believe climatologists are not scientists, then you are either
extremely misguided or you are trying to stir up mischief.

I'm going with the *mischief* angle.

If you wish to prove that climate science is incorrect, then it is up to you
to do so.

It's odd, isn't it, that all the climate deniers have no qualifications
in any relevant field, never provide evidence to back up their claims,
yet have loud voices in an attempt to drown out those who do.


Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

"Climate scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm a physicist by training.




--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/6/19 6:07 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article .com,
Keema's Nan wrote:

On 14 Jun 2019, Tim Streater wrote
(in t):

Since anyone disputing that climate "science" is "settled" gets threats
like those I mention above, I deduce that climate "science" owes more
to religion than real science.

Im not sure that I follow your logic.

Climate is not a hypothesis. It is a description of long term weather
parameters which prevail across certain regions of the planet.

Typically these parameters have been determined by data from 30
(preferably more) years of observation. You cannot prove a climate to
be untrue.

Areas of the globe might change from one climate description to
another, such as from Tundra to Cold High Latitude (or whatever the
current description happens to be) but the individual climate
parameters would remain.

Similarly, a Desert climate could envelop parts of the world which are
currently classed as Steppe or Savannah. However, if rainfall
increased in a Desert, that could become Steppe over the decades. That
would be true Climate Change - not the snowflake version which relies
on short term weather extremes to persuade the ignorant MSM that the
climate has changed.

What's a particular climate got to do with anything? Climate "science"
appears to claim that (1) the world is heating and that (2) this is
down to human activity.

(1) is ought to be a simple matter of measurement but there appear to
be those who say it is and those who say it isn't.

There is a very high level of agreement.

(2) is a matter of belief and is therefore a religious question.

Various correlations indicate human activity is the cause. Two factors
are involved - the burning of fossil fuels and the mass removal a CO2
sequestration devices, ie. trees.

Note that if you are a scientist who does not subscribe to this
orthodoxy, you won't get research grants and you will be lucky to get -
or keep - an academic position. Further, you'll be called a "denier",
just as Galileo was called a heretic.

A true scientist is a *skeptic* - skeptical about *everything*.

Yes, and the true scientists, aka skeptics, are convinced.

Is (2) above correct? How should I know, and how should anyone else. We
don't have a means of testing this hypothesis. It is therefore
unfalsifiable and is therefore not science. You can call it what you
like but not science, OK?



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/6/19 6:09 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:36:58 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 14/6/19 8:55 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:01:17 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 1:36 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:50:47 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 11:49 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:36:19 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 10:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Calling someone a convict who was most likely born over there is
pretty
stupid don't you think?

Far from it.* If he wasn't transported there himself, he's
descended
from someone who was and has inherited criminal tendencies.* Same
****ing difference.

Why would you inherit criminal tendencies?

For the same reason you inherit other characteristics from your
parents.
It's called bad blood in the trade.

No no no, god gives you your characteristics doesn't he?* That's what
you morons believe.

Who told you that horse****?* God has nothing to do with what
characteristics you inherit.* Apart from original sin, of course.

Every moron like yourself that believes in god told me it.* Or have you
guys changed your tune to suit the situation like you usually do.
You're just like those greenies.* Global warming suddenly becomes
climate change when they realise it might not be warmer but something
else.* Let's cover all the bases.* If anything changes about the
climate, we'll blame it on the CO2 emissions.* It never would have
changed by itself....

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time. The only prediction they weren't quite right
on was the speed at which it would happen. They overestimated the rate
of change at first.

They used to call it "global warming", then realised it might not be
warming but something else, so they covered all bases, just like
religious nuts changing their tune to suit what really happens.

The basic premise remains the same.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.


Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.

The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2) and removal of forest cover.

I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.

Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15 Jun 2019, Gladys Street-Porter wrote
(in article ):

Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it
-
not you, it would seem - will say.

Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.

I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.

Piers Corbyn is even more unstable than his brother.

On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.

Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.

Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.

Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.

The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)

Methane is not €œthe same€� as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.

I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 09:50:39 +1000, Jimbo, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

I didn¢t say

Nobody should really give a **** what you say or don't say, you clinically
insane, quarrelsome, senile asshole!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:21:23 +1000, Xeno, another brain damaged,
troll-feeding, senile Australian idiot, blathered:


The basic premise remains the same.

Yeah, the fact that he is a trolling asshole and you are a troll-feeding
asshole!

On 6/15/19 3:45 AM, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.
Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.
Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.
Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.
The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)
Methane is not €œthe same€� as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.
I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

Al Gore started this global warming bull****.Â* Al Gore is a democrat.Â* Democrats love to spin lies.

But all this global warming nonsense doesn't stop two-faced Al Gore from taking private jets.

https://dcstatesman.com/al-gore-busted-private-jet-use/

On 15/06/2019 09:16, Tim Streater wrote:

Reality is not decided by consensus.

Any attempt to explain reality is always accepted by consensus.

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:13:40 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:00:23 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 3:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:47:24 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 2:24 PM, ARW wrote:
On 12/06/2019 19:56, GB wrote:
On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car. The second one is
FAR more
dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/



It's not about safety. The electrician's union owns more
government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring to?

Did you read his post at all? He referred to a union, not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all? They referred
to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's. Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive. John's car. Fred's motorcycle. The
tree's leaves. It's doorhandle.

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns. Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring little **** aren't you?

You asked the question. Who's the sad, boring ****?

Cindy Hamilton

On 15 Jun 2019, Liar Liar wrote
(in article ):

On 6/15/19 3:45 AM, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.
Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.
Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.
Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.
The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)
Methane is not €œthe same€� as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.
I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.
Al Gore started this global warming bull****.

Maybe you would care to share links to your evidence which proves the globe
is not warming?

Without that, no one will take you seriously any more.

Al Gore is a democrat.
Democrats love to spin lies.

But all this global warming nonsense doesn't stop two-faced Al Gore from
taking private jets.

https://dcstatesman.com/al-gore-busted-private-jet-use/

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:38:55 +0100, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:13:40 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:00:23 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 3:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:47:24 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 2:24 PM, ARW wrote:
On 12/06/2019 19:56, GB wrote:
On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car. The second one is
FAR more
dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/



It's not about safety. The electrician's union owns more
government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring to?

Did you read his post at all? He referred to a union, not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all? They referred
to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's. Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive. John's car. Fred's motorcycle. The
tree's leaves. It's doorhandle.

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns. Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring little **** aren't you?

You asked the question. Who's the sad, boring ****?

No, I asked why people were moaning about it. The exact opposite.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:21:23 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 15/6/19 6:09 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:36:58 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 14/6/19 8:55 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:01:17 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 1:36 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:50:47 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 11:49 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:36:19 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 10:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Calling someone a convict who was most likely born over there is
pretty
stupid don't you think?

Far from it. If he wasn't transported there himself, he's
descended
from someone who was and has inherited criminal tendencies. Same
****ing difference.

Why would you inherit criminal tendencies?

For the same reason you inherit other characteristics from your
parents.
It's called bad blood in the trade.

No no no, god gives you your characteristics doesn't he? That's what
you morons believe.

Who told you that horse****? God has nothing to do with what
characteristics you inherit. Apart from original sin, of course.

Every moron like yourself that believes in god told me it. Or have you
guys changed your tune to suit the situation like you usually do.
You're just like those greenies. Global warming suddenly becomes
climate change when they realise it might not be warmer but something
else. Let's cover all the bases. If anything changes about the
climate, we'll blame it on the CO2 emissions. It never would have
changed by itself....

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time. The only prediction they weren't quite right
on was the speed at which it would happen. They overestimated the rate
of change at first.

They used to call it "global warming", then realised it might not be
warming but something else, so they covered all bases, just like
religious nuts changing their tune to suit what really happens.

The basic premise remains the same.

Yip, complete and utter nonsense that putting CO2 back where it was before oil and coal were created will somehow make the world die. It worked back then, it'll work now, very well in fact when the plants have more to breathe.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:32:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/14/2019 1:13 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:00:23 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 3:20 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:47:24 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 2:24 PM, ARW wrote:
On 12/06/2019 19:56, GB wrote:
On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to
these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car. The second one is
FAR more
dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/




It's not about safety. The electrician's union owns more
government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring to?

Did you read his post at all? He referred to a union, not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all? They referred
to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's. Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive. John's car. Fred's motorcycle. The
tree's leaves. It's doorhandle.

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You really need to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or car?

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching unimportant useless bull****. English is not mathematics, it doesn't need pedantic rules.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about the usage of words? FFS go get a hobby.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:28:41 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 14/6/19 9:07 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:04:23 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

[snipped spurious newsgroups,

They're relevant newsgroups, arsehole.

added by pet troll]

Why do you keep replying to a thread created by someone you call a
troll? Are you a ****ing idiot? Learn to operate your killfile properly.

On 12/06/2019 18:16, Brian Reay wrote:
On 12/06/2019 18:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws) you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your own home, but you can change the brakes on your car. The second
one is FAR more dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/


While I'm no fan of Part P and I'm not defending it, perhaps you'd be
less irate if you checked a decent source.

That one has obvious contradictions. Eg: Look at the entry referring to
sockets in both lists. (Item 1 in first list, 3&4 in second list.)

The article quoted is full of nonsense anyway.

Excuse me while I laugh "theyre a legal requirement and are strictly
enforced.", yeah right.

Part P does not have a requirement to use a "fully qualified"
electrician. In cases were work is notifiable, work would need to either:

1) be done by someone who is a member of a competent person scheme;
(might be someone who has done a part P domestic installer course, and
does not know ohms law from his elbow).

2) be done under the auspices of building control;

3) be tested and signed off by someone who is a member of a third party
inspection scheme.

(the latter option being newer than the first two)

Of their list of "notifiable jobs". The following are not notifiable:

Re-wire sockets or lights that are faulty and causing the fuse to
trip
Install outdoor or garden lights that run off mains electricity
Install additional sockets or a light switch as a spur from a
ring main
Install communal hallway smoke alarms or emergency lighting
Install home entry systems
Install electric radiators (where there werent any before)

There are only a small number of notifiable jobs now:

Installing a new circuit
Replacement of a Consumer unit

So was I a naughty boy when I moved my consumer unit to another room?
What about my gas pipe? It's my ****ing house, nobody's business.

It is when your house explodes and takes out all your neighbouring
houses. Yes, that happens.

Gas has a distinctive odour, I'd know if I did it wrong.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:46:36 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:47:24 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 2:24 PM, ARW wrote:
On 12/06/2019 19:56, GB wrote:
On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car. The second one is
FAR more
dangerous to other people!


https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...ed-an-electric
ian/


It's not about safety. The electrician's union owns more government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring to?

Did you read his post at all? He referred to a union, not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all? They referred to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's. Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules", why
it's cannot be possessive. John's car. Fred's motorcycle.
The tree's leaves. It's doorhandle.

"it's" is short for "it is", that's why. And yes, there's some
confusion in that:

John's car
John's going to the shops (John is going to the shops)

look a bit similar.

And so could it's and it's. No reason to have a difference between John and it. They are both entities which own something.

In the same way, "who's" is short for "who is", and we use "whose" for
the possessive.

You just have to think about what you're writing, is all. And not write
"loose" when you mean "lose", not write "a criteria" when you mean "a
criterion", and understand why:

She gave it to John and I --- is wrong
She gave it to John and me --- is right

Who gives a **** about that?

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:32:52 +0100, Xeno wrote:

On 14/6/19 6:36 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:50:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 11:49 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:36:19 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/13/2019 10:59 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:33:25 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/13/2019 10:03 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"GB" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2019 2:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"GB" wrote in message
...
On 6/12/2019 1:47 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:44:21 +0100, GB

wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:39 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:27:24 +0100, GB

wrote:

On 6/12/2019 12:43 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:56:15 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:47 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:36:59 +0100, GB

wrote:

On 6/12/2019 10:28 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:23:22 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bob
Pringle
wrote:

On 6/12/2019 1:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any
attention
to these
laws) you
cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical
socket to your
own home,
but you can change the brakes on your car. The
second
one is FAR
more
dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/








It's not about safety. The electrician's union owns
more
government
lawmakers
than the mechanic's union.

Which electrician and which mechanic are you referring
to?

Did you read his post at all? He referred to a union,
not an
individual.

Did you not see where the apostrophes were at all? They
referred
to an
individual's union in each case.

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the
apostrophes in
the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the
union for all electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people
who think
plural's take apostrophe's.

Go take your OCD medication, we're not interested.

Go take your illiteracy elsewhere, we're not interested.

Not my fault if you can't understand what everyone else can.

Not my fault if I **** on illiterates.

FACT: 99% of people do not put apostrophes at the end.

Where did you pull this 'fact' from? Out of your rear end,
just
like
all your other 'facts'?

Only a computer program requires precision placing of
apostrophes.
The rest of us knew perfectly well what was meant. Grow up.

Getting ahead in the modern world requires literacy.

Bull**** it does with that OCD ****.

Correct grammar is not OCD, you stupid ****ing convict.

Corse it is

Of course it's not, you stupid ****ing illiterate convict.

Calling someone a convict who was most likely born over there is
pretty
stupid don't you think?

Far from it. If he wasn't transported there himself, he's descended
from someone who was and has inherited criminal tendencies. Same
****ing difference.

Why would you inherit criminal tendencies?

For the same reason you inherit other characteristics from your parents.
It's called bad blood in the trade.

No no no, god gives you your characteristics doesn't he? That's what
you morons believe.

I always find that amusing. All blame to god for getting it wrong! LOL

Religious nuts blame whoever suits their argument. Oh, let's just change it to god created one of us and expects the rest of us to follow his teachings. If there really was a god, he's a ****ing prick. Famine, disease, WTF?

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:10:29 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:52 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:03:40 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:47:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:06:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:30:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:57:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:45:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to
these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical
socket
to
your
own home,

That's a pig ignorant lie.

Well that's what the link says.

Its wrong.

It is interest ring that the people who still live under a queen

They dont.

can't read the queen's English

That isnt Liz's english.

"Repairs you can do yourself

However, there are some jobs that you can do yourself without
calling
in a qualified electrician as long as you are competent with
DIY/Handyman works around the house. These do not fall under
€˜Part
P
guidelines, so you dont have to notify your local building
control
body if you want to:

Replace light bulbs or plug fuses
Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like"

In fact you are free to add a new socket to the ring main too.

You can do what the **** you like as it's in your own home and
nobody
inspects it.

I meant its legal to do that.

Apparently not, only replacing existing ones.

Wrong, ask Adam.

Like he'd know any more than any other electrician.

Corse he knows whats legal.

You claimed mine didn't.

He clearly doesnt.

I don't think anybody does, or cares.

Adam lives in a council house, mine owns three properties.

Irrelevant to how well yours knows the english regulations.

I doubt Adam is any more intelligent than my bloke.

He is anyway. Your fool cant even work out whats legal in england

He doesn't care, and doesn't live in England.

or how to get away with what he claims is illegal and isnt.

He gets away with loads.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:08:18 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:35:44 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:43:03 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Pat Sajak said it best:

"Only when we have enough laws to properly govern our behavior can we
truly enjoy the freedoms of America".

He was entirely wrong. There is no freedom with all these rules. Leave
us alone!

Fortunately, other than being a game show host, nobody listens to Pat
Sajack about much of anything.
Here in Florida we may not be able to count votes but we can do our
own electrical work and damned near anything else in our own home.
You can pull your own permit for anything from a total house rewire to
doing all of the plumbing and all of the HVAC, along with building the
whole house yourself.
In my area they aren't even very particular about getting a permit if
you can't see the work from the street.
You can count on the tax man showing up tho. He is airborne.

In Scotland I can do anything I like unless it impinges on a neighbour.

That's wrong too.

Give an example.

I can build a garage, a conservatory, I can do anything electrical.

That's wrong too.

No it isn't. There are no regulations about me doing my own wiring. I can rewire the whole house if I wish. Garages, conservatories, anything that isn't an actual "extension" do not require permission. Check the government website.

Not gas, but who can see :-) An extension to the house apparently needs
planning permission,

And so does the original house.

It's already here, what's your point?

but all that means is paying a small fee and having all the neighbours the
opportunity to say "it would block my light".

That's wrong too.

State why.

? But if it's got enough windows, it's called a conservatory and is exempt
:-)

Wrong again.

Bull****, check the government website, there is a percentage of glass for it to be classed as a conservatory.

On 6/15/2019 6:06 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:32:30 +0100, GB wrote:

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the
apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who
think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's.* Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive.* John's car.* Fred's motorcycle.* The
tree's leaves.* It's doorhandle.

1.* 'It' is a pronoun.* The others are not.* Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not.* 'It' is a pronoun.* Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference.* You really need
to get a life.* Why should it have any less importance than cat or car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less importance
than car or car, it's just different.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc.* It helps when teaching English to illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****.* English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

2.* For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life.* You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you?* A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:59:18 -0400, Liar Liar
wrote:

On 6/15/19 3:45 AM, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.
Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.
Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.
Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.
The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)
Methane is not “the same” as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.
I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

Al Gore started this global warming bull****.* Al Gore is a democrat.* Democrats love to spin lies.

But all this global warming nonsense doesn't stop two-faced Al Gore from taking private jets.

https://dcstatesman.com/al-gore-busted-private-jet-use/

of course gore is a fake and a hypocrite...he's socialist

that won't stop the atmosphere from warming

hitler fawned over dogs and little children...it didn't
stop him being a mass murderer

--
www.abelard.org

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 6:06 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:32:30 +0100, GB wrote:

You make the assumption he's one of the few who puts the
apostrophes
in the right place.

He's obviously not.

Most will write "electrician's union" to mean the union for all
electricians.

Only the illiterate would do that...the same sort of people who
think
plural's take apostrophe's.


So Plural and his mates have stolen apostrophe's apostrophe?

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

Talking of it's. Explain to me, logically, not just "it's the rules",
why it's cannot be possessive. John's car. Fred's motorcycle. The
tree's leaves. It's doorhandle.

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You really need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****. English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50 different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly rules. I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of "that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't matter which word is used. Did and done are both the past tense of do

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:04:08 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:25:01 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:19:24 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:16:18 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 12/06/2019 18:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home, but you can change the brakes on your car. The second
one is
FAR more dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/

While I'm no fan of Part P and I'm not defending it, perhaps you'd
be
less irate if you checked a decent source.

That one has obvious contradictions. Eg: Look at the entry referring
to
sockets in both lists. (Item 1 in first list, 3&4 in second list.)

I guess it's one of those rules that nobody understands. A (Scottish,
therefore not subject to part P) electrician told me you couldn't even
replace a lightswitch in England without a certificate.

That is not what the list you posted said in things you can do.

+1

The list is also somewhat contradictory and stupid in at leas some
places.
Like:

DIY Not allowed:

Re-wire sockets or lights that are faulty and causing the fuse to trip


Allowed:

Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like
Make repairs to loose wirings in switches, light fittings, or plugs
Replace light switches
Replace sockets

So if you have a light fixture with an obvious short, you can't
replace it yourself. And good luck enforcing that BS.

You're not allowed to install a "home entry system". What's that?
Security alarm?

I think they are saying that if you have a wiring fault you should
call a pro but you can throw a receptacle, switch or luminaire at it
to see if that fixes anything first.

Which is insane, because an idiot could just as easily cause a fire by
replacing a switch badly.

Wrong, that doesn't cause a fire. The only two likely results is that doesn't
work or takes out the fuse.

Loose cables connected to anything can cause arcs and heating. Or you might put the wrong switch in without the appropriate current carrying capabilities.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:


Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.


your numbers are dodgy
look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...


--
www.abelard.org

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:02:07 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:26:45 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:19:24 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:16:18 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 12/06/2019 18:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home, but you can change the brakes on your car. The second
one
is
FAR more dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/

While I'm no fan of Part P and I'm not defending it, perhaps you'd
be
less irate if you checked a decent source.

That one has obvious contradictions. Eg: Look at the entry
referring
to
sockets in both lists. (Item 1 in first list, 3&4 in second list.)

I guess it's one of those rules that nobody understands. A
(Scottish,
therefore not subject to part P) electrician told me you couldn't
even
replace a lightswitch in England without a certificate.

That is not what the list you posted said in things you can do.

+1

The list is also somewhat contradictory and stupid in at leas some
places.
Like:

DIY Not allowed:

Re-wire sockets or lights that are faulty and causing the fuse to trip


Allowed:

Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like
Make repairs to loose wirings in switches, light fittings, or plugs
Replace light switches
Replace sockets

So if you have a light fixture with an obvious short, you can't
replace it yourself. And good luck enforcing that BS.

You're not allowed to install a "home entry system". What's that?
Security alarm?

I think they are saying that if you have a wiring fault you should
call a pro but you can throw a receptacle, switch or luminaire at it
to see if that fixes anything first.

I doubt many of us on the left side of the pond know much about
ring circuits but it might be confusing the first time you see one.

Not really, the main difference is the fusing. All pretty simple really.

The fusing isn't different at all.

Corse it is. Much higher fuse ratings with a ring.

No, if I made a circuit for sockets, I'd have the same 30A fuse, but have it in a straight line with one 30A cable. If the cable comes undone, no power. If a cable comes undone in a ring, 30A allowed through 15A of cable, fire!

The difference is instead of a 30A cable, we use two 15A cables.

Wrong again.

It is not wrong. The cables are rated lower than the fuse (which is ****ing stupid if one breaks).

And a lot less cabling is required.

It's fractionally more cabling actually as you have to complete the circle.

Saves on copper after the war....

Yes. But that isnt the only advantage of a ring.

There are no other points to it.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 16:03:52 +0200, abelard
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 05:59:18 -0400, Liar Liar
wrote:

On 6/15/19 3:45 AM, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.
Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.
Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.
Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.
The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)
Methane is not “the same” as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.
I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

Al Gore started this global warming bull****.* Al Gore is a democrat.* Democrats love to spin lies.

But all this global warming nonsense doesn't stop two-faced Al Gore from taking private jets.

https://dcstatesman.com/al-gore-busted-private-jet-use/

of course gore is a fake and a hypocrite...he's socialist

that won't stop the atmosphere from warming

hitler fawned over dogs and little children...it didn't
stop him being a mass murderer

*Alleged* mass murderer.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 16:13:03 +0200, abelard
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:


Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.


your numbers are dodgy
look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

So the solution is...exhale more, fart less!

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB wrote:

1.* 'It' is a pronoun.* The others are not.* Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not.* 'It' is a pronoun.* Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference.* You really need
to get a life.* Why should it have any less importance than cat or car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate.* It doesn't have less importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc.* It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****.* English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each.* Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing difference, do you?

2.* For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life.* You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you?* A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's pretty
much it.