http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/

Colin Bignell

harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

"´The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade,
is crumbling,¡ he wrote in The Australian. ´Global temperatures have
gone nowhere for 17 years... If the IPCC were your financial adviser,
you would have sacked it long ago.¡"

--
Terry Fields

Well, the increasingly dynamic weather will downgrade the extra energy
stored fine I'm sure.
I think the term climate change is definitely better than global warming as
the latter suggests everyone will be warmer, which is not what the models
show, they show more violent weather and more cold and hot places and the
in between is where the energy gets expended.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html




How do you equate that with the fact that warming is slower than
predicted as DECC have said.

It proves you can't believe anything a climate scientist says.
They will tell you anything that alarms you and will get them more funding.

On 06/01/2014 08:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html


From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/


Colin Bignell

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid
righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 06/01/2014 10:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

On 06/01/2014 08:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...546128/Worlds-

climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

From a link on that page:


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-you-still-bel

ieve-in-climate-change-read-this/

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid
righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.

These are mere assertions on your part (although they may be true).
However I would expect you to justify that:

1) the piece is misleading

2) Delingpole habitually lies

Note that I have not read the piece and don't intend to. However I
would draw your attention to one of the opinion pieces in the Times
today.


Also, the (older) IEA paper linked by Delingpole seems quite sensible
and, as Delingpole says, selecting unreasonable discount rates (Stern)
severely skews the predicted best policy.

On 06/01/2014 09:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, the increasingly dynamic weather will downgrade the extra energy
stored fine I'm sure.
I think the term climate change is definitely better than global warming as
the latter suggests everyone will be warmer, which is not what the models
show, they show more violent weather and more cold and hot places and the
in between is where the energy gets expended.
Brian


The climate change models don't show any such thing.
You are talking about weather not climate and the predictions that
*increased* temperatures will produce worse weather are what the
alarmists use to get the uneducated to panic.

The real facts are that the weather isn't particularly bad and most of
the storms and such like have been happening for centuries, only the
effects are worse due to the larger number of people being affected and
the poor decisions on where to live.

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling
floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is
some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the houses
down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to
somewhere else by building flood defences.

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html


We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

dennis@home wrote:

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling
floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is
some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the houses
down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to
somewhere else by building flood defences.

You can't do that. Planning departments are infamous for lack of common
sense. A relative was plagued by a damp patch on his dining room wall.
In desperation, he lifted the floor boards and found that he was looking
at his reflection in the water under the floor. By chance, I talked to
someone who lived in the area and he said that he wondered what would
happen when they built that group of houses on the local duck pond!
Relative moved quickly.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/

Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole?
Well known nutter.
Also believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum
powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html


I wouldn't say it is warming any faster than it did when the last ice age
came to an end, the glaciers that covered britain, up to a mile thick, all
melted and 'spring' arrived with a vengeance, all within a century, despite
the fact that the ice had been there for a very long time prior to that. In
short, don't panic.

On Monday, 6 January 2014 14:57:57 UTC, harry wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message

...

On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html



From a link on that page:



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/



Colin Bignell





You get your info from Delingpole?

Well known nutter.

Also believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum

powder.

Actually talcum poweder isn't that harmelss. I was told that my grandmother likely death in the ealy 70s could have been due the talcum powder which she used for much of her life, it'd gotten into her lungs which caused her slow death.
Of course modern talc might be OK how else would mone get into ones PCV and leather shorts ;-)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change

On 06/01/2014 14:57, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/

Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole?
Well known nutter.
Also believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum
powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change

If you consider one of two articles in the same newspaper to be
unreliable, why should the other be any more reliable?

Colin Bignell

On 06/01/2014 10:10, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html



From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/



Colin Bignell

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid
righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.


Both are articles in the same newspaper, which suggests they should be
treated as equally believable, or unbelievable, as the case may be.

Colin Bignell

On 06/01/14 10:10, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html



From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/



Colin Bignell

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid
righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.

well that's what the acolytes of warmisms call him.

Actually I'd say he was a bright bloke with a lot of style who spotted
long ago that people don't normally do ad hominem attacks on other
people if they have facts logic and reason behind their propositions.

As you have done.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/01/14 10:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

On 06/01/2014 08:57, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...546128/Worlds-

climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

From a link on that page:


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-you-still-bel

ieve-in-climate-change-read-this/

That is another misleading piece Delingpole a well known paranoid
righttard nutter blog and pathological liar about climate change.

These are mere assertions on your part (although they may be true).
However I would expect you to justify that:

1) the piece is misleading

2) Delingpole habitually lies

never caught him at it yet.

Geoffrey lean on the other hand...

Note that I have not read the piece and don't intend to.

But you will dismiss it anyway.

However I
would draw your attention to one of the opinion pieces in the Times
today.

why?



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 06/01/2014 14:57, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html



From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/



Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole? Well known nutter. Also believes
smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum
powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change




Talcum powder is dangerous, its also probably carcinogenic.

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html


We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

No, different Romans

On 06/01/2014 19:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html


We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

I was thinking that. The first time I visited Hadrian's wall (on a
relatively nice summer day 40 years ago) I asked myself what on earth
did they come here for (the standard answer in those days was the copper
in Anglesey and the tin and lead in Cornwall). That was before I looked
up what they were growing.

In message m,
"dennis@home" writes
On 06/01/2014 09:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, the increasingly dynamic weather will downgrade the extra energy
stored fine I'm sure.
I think the term climate change is definitely better than global warming as
the latter suggests everyone will be warmer, which is not what the models
show, they show more violent weather and more cold and hot places and the
in between is where the energy gets expended.
Brian


The climate change models don't show any such thing.
You are talking about weather not climate and the predictions that
*increased* temperatures will produce worse weather are what the
alarmists use to get the uneducated to panic.

The real facts are that the weather isn't particularly bad and most of
the storms and such like have been happening for centuries, only the
effects are worse due to the larger number of people being affected and
the poor decisions on where to live.

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling
floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is
some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the
houses down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to
somewhere else by building flood defences.
And stop building houses altogether because they contribute to flooding
downstream wherever they are built.
--
bert

In message , Capitol
writes


dennis@home wrote:

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling
floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is
some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the houses
down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to
somewhere else by building flood defences.

You can't do that. Planning departments are infamous for lack of
common sense. A relative was plagued by a damp patch on his dining room
wall. In desperation, he lifted the floor boards and found that he was
looking at his reflection in the water under the floor. By chance, I
talked to someone who lived in the area and he said that he wondered
what would happen when they built that group of houses on the local
duck pond! Relative moved quickly.
It used to be the responsibility of the Rivers Authority to assess the
impact of all housing developments on the local waterways and streams.
--
bert

In message , bert ]
writes
In message , Capitol
writes


dennis@home wrote:

What people forget is that flood plains are natures way of controlling
floods and if you build on them you will get flooded. What's needed is
some sanity and to stop building where you shouldn't and pull the houses
down that do flood frequently rather than *moving* the floods to
somewhere else by building flood defences.

You can't do that. Planning departments are infamous for lack
of common sense. A relative was plagued by a damp patch on his dining
room wall. In desperation, he lifted the floor boards and found that
he was looking at his reflection in the water under the floor. By
chance, I talked to someone who lived in the area and he said that he
wondered what would happen when they built that group of houses on the
local duck pond! Relative moved quickly.
It used to be the responsibility of the Rivers Authority to assess the
impact of all housing developments on the local waterways and streams.

Still is or rather the EA. They have a strong say in what happens within
8m of a river bank.

I only got permission to build a calf shed (more than 8m from the bank
but well within the flood plain) by agreeing flood water must be able to
enter the building. They are rightly concerned that structures will
occupy some of the available flood volume.

Local development was not allowed to have garden sheds!



--
Tim Lamb

On 06/01/2014 20:19, bert wrote:

And stop building houses altogether because they contribute to flooding
downstream wherever they are built.

Not if they don't accelerate the run off into the rivers.

On 06/01/2014 19:55, newshound wrote:
On 06/01/2014 19:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

They were homesick for wine and warmth so were brewing their own low
grade plonk locally to drown their sorrows. Today there are vineyards
making commercial quality wines just outside York and also at Helmsley.

http://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/

And these are wines that match up to international judging standards not
some Centurions home brew gut rot.

I was thinking that. The first time I visited Hadrian's wall (on a
relatively nice summer day 40 years ago) I asked myself what on earth
did they come here for (the standard answer in those days was the copper
in Anglesey and the tin and lead in Cornwall). That was before I looked
up what they were growing.

Copper, Tin and Lead. They also brought us the stinging nettle, ground
elder and the sycamore tree all three of them pernicious weeds.

Stinging nettles to help keep them warm! Ground elder for the gout and
sycamore presumably as a quick growing source of a familiar wood.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message m,
"dennis@home" writes
On 06/01/2014 20:19, bert wrote:

And stop building houses altogether because they contribute to flooding
downstream wherever they are built.

Not if they don't accelerate the run off into the rivers.

I sold a small strip of development land so kept a close watch on the
eventual planning consents.

Surface water had to be collected and restricted from joining the
existing drainage system at more than a specified rate. This was perhaps
more to do with not overwhelming the existing pipe work than protecting
riverside dwellings. Nevertheless, some thought is given to development
drainage impact.

I have long thought that town planners must have some inbuilt fear of
allowing private housing to overlook valleys. Hence exception 32 (I
think) where low cost housing may be permitted to the exclusion of
conventional.

--
Tim Lamb

bert wrote:

And stop building houses altogether because they contribute to flooding
downstream wherever they are built.

We have to build houses because the population is going to go up a lot,
because of immigration.

Bill

On Monday, 6 January 2014 10:21:23 UTC, Tim Streater wrote:

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores
the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams

How long ago was that written?

Bill's best beat IBM at IBM. GNU was a loner's wet dream and Linux wasn't even a twinkle. Then Windows became a monopoly and the Gate knew just how to work a monopoly.

Apple could have made a rival but their business plan was to replicate IBM not do a software. Software became a part of the product because Jobs had superb writers working at bottom dollar rates and he could always get more of them

On 07/01/2014 12:54, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 6 January 2014 10:21:23 UTC, Tim Streater wrote:

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores
the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams

How long ago was that written?

Before the 11th of May 2001.

Apple could have made a rival but their business plan was to replicate IBM not do a software. Software became a part of the product because Jobs had superb writers working at bottom dollar rates and he could always get more of them

IMO, Apple's mistake was to try and create a walled garden. This was
also their strength, as they could quite truthfully say that their stuff
"Just Worked", as long as you were working the way they wanted you to.
The IBM model, while being a lot more open, was also less reliable.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Monday, 6 January 2014 18:22:27 UTC, Tim Streater wrote:

"Mr McIntyre later unearthed the same problem when the hockey stick
graph was relaunched to overcome his critique, with Siberian Larch
trees instead of bristlecone. This time, the lead author, Keith
Briffra, of the University of East Anglia, had used only a small sample
of 12 larch trees for recent years, ignoring a much larger data set of
the same age from the same region. If the analysis was repeated with
all the larch trees there was no hockey-stick shape to the graph."

Ignoring the fact that Siberia (particularly the coastal stretch where the logs were dragged out of the lake) has it's own peculiar climate conditions;
we don't know what conditions caused the growth of these trees, they were in a bog and the region is known to suffer problems from cold and heat as well as sunburn for trees not actually in the wet soil.

And we don't know if the pond was a pond when they were growing. It seems fair to assume it was. Or does the region have beavers capable of altering the climate locally?

The biggest problem on relying on such sparse data is that if there was a forest fire near where the trees were growing in a pond; they would have been spared, showered with ash as fertiliser and received more sunlight from the destruction of any trees upslope.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 06/01/2014 14:57, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html



From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/



Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole? Well known nutter. Also believes
smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as talcum
powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change




Talcum powder is dangerous, its also probably carcinogenic.

Another of your fantasies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcum_powder#Safety

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 19:55, newshound wrote:
On 06/01/2014 19:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

They were homesick for wine and warmth so were brewing their own low grade
plonk locally to drown their sorrows. Today there are vineyards making
commercial quality wines just outside York and also at Helmsley.

http://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/

And these are wines that match up to international judging standards not
some Centurions home brew gut rot.

I was thinking that. The first time I visited Hadrian's wall (on a
relatively nice summer day 40 years ago) I asked myself what on earth
did they come here for (the standard answer in those days was the copper
in Anglesey and the tin and lead in Cornwall). That was before I looked
up what they were growing.

Copper, Tin and Lead. They also brought us the stinging nettle, ground
elder and the sycamore tree all three of them pernicious weeds.

Stinging nettles to help keep them warm! Ground elder for the gout and
sycamore presumably as a quick growing source of a familiar wood.

And rabbits.

On 07/01/2014 17:07, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 06/01/2014 14:57, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html





From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/





Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole? Well known nutter. Also
believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as
talcum powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change






Talcum powder is dangerous, its also probably carcinogenic.

Another of your fantasies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcum_powder#Safety




But that article doesn't say its safe.
Maybe you didn't understand what it says?

On 07/01/2014 17:11, harryagain wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 19:55, newshound wrote:
On 06/01/2014 19:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

They were homesick for wine and warmth so were brewing their own low grade
plonk locally to drown their sorrows. Today there are vineyards making
commercial quality wines just outside York and also at Helmsley.

http://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/

And these are wines that match up to international judging standards not
some Centurions home brew gut rot.

I was thinking that. The first time I visited Hadrian's wall (on a
relatively nice summer day 40 years ago) I asked myself what on earth
did they come here for (the standard answer in those days was the copper
in Anglesey and the tin and lead in Cornwall). That was before I looked
up what they were growing.

Copper, Tin and Lead. They also brought us the stinging nettle, ground
elder and the sycamore tree all three of them pernicious weeds.

Stinging nettles to help keep them warm! Ground elder for the gout and
sycamore presumably as a quick growing source of a familiar wood.

And rabbits.

The evidence suggests that the Roman introduced rabbits died out in
Britain around the 5th century BC. They did not take too kindly to being
transplanted from the warmer climate of Spain.

The wild rabbits in Britain today (with the possible exception of those
on Lundy, which may be descended from Roman rabbits) are almost
certainly descended from those introduced by the Normans.

The Romans did leave us with the edible dormouse though, as well as
(probably) guinea fowl and chickens.

Colin Bignell

On 07/01/2014 18:48, Nightjar wrote:

The Romans did leave us with the edible dormouse though, as well as
(probably) guinea fowl and chickens.

Really? I thought it was Lionel Walter Rothschild!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_dormouse

Nasty things to invade your house. Neighbours have had them in recent years.

--
Rod

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 07/01/2014 17:07, harryagain wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 06/01/2014 14:57, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 08:12, harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html





From a link on that page:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...nge-read-this/





Colin Bignell


You get your info from Delingpole? Well known nutter. Also
believes smoking is harmless and asbestos is the as harmless as
talcum powder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...climate_change






Talcum powder is dangerous, its also probably carcinogenic.

Another of your fantasies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcum_powder#Safety




But that article doesn't say its safe.
Maybe you didn't understand what it says?

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927617

in 1283542 20140107 125435 Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 6 January 2014 10:21:23 UTC, Tim Streater wrote:

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores
the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams

How long ago was that written?

Bill's best beat IBM at IBM.

MicroSoft's revenues have never come close to IBM's.

Yes, they make more from software but that's never been a major part of IBM's
business.

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:12:59 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour
to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly
ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
technology, led them into it in the first place."
- Douglas Adams

How long ago was that written?

Bill's best beat IBM at IBM.

MicroSoft's revenues have never come close to IBM's.

Yes, they make more from software but that's never been a major part of
IBM's business.

Sales are slightly lower ($78bn vs $108bn for 2013), but income is higher
($57bn vs $49bn for 2013). Both fairly typical years, although MSFT is
climbing whilst IBM's more static.

http://www.marke****ch.com/investing...sft/financials
http://www.marke****ch.com/investing...ibm/financials

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2014 17:11, harryagain wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/2014 19:55, newshound wrote:
On 06/01/2014 19:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:12:07 +0000, Capitol wrote:

harryagain wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ange/10546128/
Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html

We are the UK, we get weather change not climate change. We knew
a
century ago that weather cycles exist and had even charted them. The
romans described the UK as having permanent winter, I don't see any
difference.

The same Romans that grew grapes in Yorkshire ?

They were homesick for wine and warmth so were brewing their own low
grade
plonk locally to drown their sorrows. Today there are vineyards making
commercial quality wines just outside York and also at Helmsley.

http://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/

And these are wines that match up to international judging standards not
some Centurions home brew gut rot.

I was thinking that. The first time I visited Hadrian's wall (on a
relatively nice summer day 40 years ago) I asked myself what on earth
did they come here for (the standard answer in those days was the
copper
in Anglesey and the tin and lead in Cornwall). That was before I looked
up what they were growing.

Copper, Tin and Lead. They also brought us the stinging nettle, ground
elder and the sycamore tree all three of them pernicious weeds.

Stinging nettles to help keep them warm! Ground elder for the gout and
sycamore presumably as a quick growing source of a familiar wood.

And rabbits.

The evidence suggests that the Roman introduced rabbits died out in
Britain around the 5th century BC. They did not take too kindly to being
transplanted from the warmer climate of Spain.

The wild rabbits in Britain today (with the possible exception of those on
Lundy, which may be descended from Roman rabbits) are almost certainly
descended from those introduced by the Normans.

The Romans did leave us with the edible dormouse though, as well as
(probably) guinea fowl and chickens.

Colin Bignell

Fifth century BC?????
Riiiiight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_invasion_of_Britain

Your dementia troubling you again?

On 08/01/2014 09:40, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2014 17:11, harryagain wrote:
....
And rabbits.

The evidence suggests that the Roman introduced rabbits died out in
Britain around the 5th century BC. They did not take too kindly to being
transplanted from the warmer climate of Spain.

The wild rabbits in Britain today (with the possible exception of those on
Lundy, which may be descended from Roman rabbits) are almost certainly
descended from those introduced by the Normans.
....

Fifth century BC?????

That should, of course, have been AD. Not that it changes the basic fact
that the rabbits we have today were almost certainly introduced by the
Normans.

Colin Bignell