On 20/01/2018 10:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier': Somebody who rejects the fact that
the climate is changing or do you include somebody, like me, who knows
that the climate is changing but doesn't think that anybody has provided
adequate evidence that their particular hypothesis explains why?


The alarmists mean anyone that doesn't agree with them, just like TNP
and lefties.


Anyone with sense knows that the climate changes, it has been changing
since the atmosphere appeared.
However the models being used to predict imminent doom are cr@p.
They failed to predict what is happening now when used in the past, so
they can't be used to predict the future.
Even worse is that they don't actually use physical models but
statistical models where suitable fudge factors are inserted to correct
anomalies without any real understanding of what the cause is.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear
on the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

And even more who think by looking out of the window they know what the
climate is doing world wide.

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

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:02:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s.

Really? You have had temperatures of minus 10 degrees C (and lower) this
winter? You have had deep snow that has lasted for weeks on end? You
have had short periods of heavy snow lasting up to a week that have
completely covered cars?

Our fuel bills have certainly been a lot cheaper over the last 4 years -
to the extent that the coal we bought in 2013 hasn't been touched and we
have burnt far less wood in the stove too.

Do you actually live in the UK? Or is your memory failing?

I must update my killfile again as I've just started seeing your posts
again.

Nightjar wrote:

On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier': Somebody who rejects the fact that
the climate is changing or do you include somebody, like me, who knows
that the climate is changing but doesn't think that anybody has provided
adequate evidence that their particular hypothesis explains why?

Or those of us who are really not sure whether there is a real, secular
change in climate, but are pretty sure that if there is then it must be
the fault of the capitalists?


--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year.

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted
until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or
snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.

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

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Once upon a time 'natural philosophers' were either educated gentlemen
of independent means, parsons with livings, or people who did science as
a hobby.

Whilst they risked their reputaions, they didnt risk their livelihoods.

Narurally socialism's first target was gentlemen of inependent means,
followed by parsons...

...and persons who do science for a hobby,m are dismissted as 'not being
professionals' Or something.

Well, that certainly explains you being so bitter. Flawed argument of
course. But carry on believing it if it makes you happy.

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark Allread wrote:
This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s.

Really? You have had temperatures of minus 10 degrees C (and lower) this
winter? You have had deep snow that has lasted for weeks on end? You
have had short periods of heavy snow lasting up to a week that have
completely covered cars?

And total ********. Except if referring to the same location. Which I
doubt Turnip has lived in all his life.

I've lived in this house for 40 years. And this winter - so far - is
nothing like the hardest one I've experience here. There has been no
significant snow yet. Unlike several years I can remember. And not even
particularly low temperatures often. Easy to tell by how often you have to
de-ice the car windows.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year.

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted
until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or
snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.

I collected my scooter from St Albans early '63. It had been sent down
from home via a carrier. And well remember driving it very carefully to
London over packed snow. On a main road.

'76 or '77 also had an unusual amount of snow. Had great difficulty
driving to work and was over an hour late despite leaving home early. But
that didn't last for long.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/01/2018 11:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-20, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier':


Those who don't accept a link between human activity and climate.

It's a meaningless phrase used by those who feel the world should be run
by them and people like them (using climate change as an excuse) about
people who don't.


Can't speak for everyone, of course, but the last person I'd want
running the world is me :-)


--
Cheers, Rob

On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

On 19/01/2018 22:44, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate

I can't predict what you'll roll on a die. Roll it enough times and the
average is pretty clear.


True but are those in charge of the climate models including all the
results that don't meet their perceived ideas of "global warming", or
the results that don't exactly match the measured data for the last 200
years, in the average? I suspect that most results are rejected as
being incorrect and the model is tweaked again until the results meet
expectations.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 20/01/2018 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 08:57, RJH wrote:
I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on
anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to
support anything I say, or claim any expertise.

Then why are you cpommenting at all.


Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1
(supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do
manage to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited
pretty quickly and retract.

Well no, they are not.

That is just more faklse news.

I put a monograph out about renewable energy using a name I had *never
used before on the internet* .


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

Back in around 2011.

Within a day a blog reported thet the 'well known climate demnier author
XXX XXX had been thoroughly discredited years before'

That was enough to tell me that there exist on te internet people whose
JOBS are to discredit anyone who isn't singing from their hymn sheet.


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


Sites like skeptikalscience.com and desmogblog are sites set up to do
just that.

Shout down and lie about what is going on. Ther is bigÂ* big money in
climate change - trillions of dollars worldwide, and there is plenty of
loose change to buy bloggers and scientists up.


And there's trillions going the other way.

You may be irritated by what you see as the waste of renewables,
misdirection of resources, the intellectual elite's support, and (I'd
guess) the most important - the way climate trends might put this
country at a competitive disadvantage (compared to the US, India, and to
a significant but reducing extent, China). But the counter also has
traction - and it isn't a truth/lie binary.

Even if you don't accept depleting natural resources and CO2 doubling
can have climate-related consequences I can find very good reasons to
consume less in any event. But another story, maybe.


A professor admitted to me 'we actually wanted to do the job of
researching efficient coal combustion, but we couldnt get a grant till
we mentioned that it would enable 'carbon capture' to beÂ* done more
easily, if next to impossible is easier than completely impossible, anyway'


I can believe that.

The money flows into 'climate change'. No one funds the truth. Who gives
a **** about the truth, what we want is profits and to rape consumers?

Dramatise a crisis :-)


http://vps.templar.co.uk/slideshow.p...achine-800.gif


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


--
Cheers, Rob

On 18/01/2018 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Or when they run models backwards and find things like the little ice
age, medieval warm period, dark ages, Roman warm period etc.

Or even manage to get "ordinary" ice ages, rather than snowball earth.

On 20/01/18 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 09:13, JoeJoe wrote:
On 20/01/2018 08:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear
on the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.

Educated? PPE and Media Studies hardly prepare you for anything other
than a job at the BBC and/or in politics.


Well exactly. Educated as in 'bin 2 uni' doesnt mean you are even worth
having sex with.

...and you wonder why anyone who can do and/or understand anything more
complicated that 2+2 is automatically believed and referred to as a
Maths (or just general science) "genius" by the media.

The great leap forward of postwar socialism was to give money to the
lower middle class irrespective of whether they could do anything useful
or not.

Naturally the corporations mounted huge advertising campaigns to tell
them what to think and what to buy.

And how clever they were.

It was in the end a wonderful way to control the masses. Buy off the
leaders and give them knighthoods etc and get them to talk utter
******** (in the right sort of regional accents) to the plebs, who would
believe it all, especially if they were told that believing it was
fahionable, or smart, whilst you raked in money from them by selling
tham tat, which you then used to buy politicians and more 'working
class heroes*' and ensured that all science was in the end government
funded, or funded by big corporations, so all scientists' jobs depended
on them getting the 'right answers'.

Once upon a time 'natural philosophers' were either educated gentlemen
of independent means, parsons with livings, or people who did science as
a hobby.

Whilst they risked their reputaions, they didnt risk their livelihoods.

Narurally socialism's first target was gentlemen of inependent means,
followed by parsons...

...and persons who do science for a hobby,m are dismissted as 'not being
professionals' Or something.



*"You think your so clever and classless and free, but you're all
****ing peasants, as far as I can see" (John Lennon: Working Class Hero)

Your use of the word 'socialism' is remarkably idiosyncratic. The
blessed Thatcher did more than anyone to advance the process you
describe, and was largely following America. You can call
globalisation and worship of the "free" market socialism if you want to,
but all it proves is that you think socialism is impossible.


No, ot really happened with Blair, not Thatcher, when Blair and Gore in
their different ways worked out how to subvert what little positives
there were in socialism and environmentalism and bring them both in as
tools of corporatins.

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 20/01/18 11:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather.Â* Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us.Â*Â* I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year.

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted
until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or
snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.

1963 was a winter like no other, before or since.

It cant be used to make a point either way.

Neither can the summer of 1975, which to my mind was hotter than
anything since.



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 20/01/18 11:04, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:02:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s.

Really? You have had temperatures of minus 10 degrees C (and lower) this
winter?

yes

You have had deep snow that has lasted for weeks on end? You
have had short periods of heavy snow lasting up to a week that have
completely covered cars?


Not this yesar. That was 2010

Our fuel bills have certainly been a lot cheaper over the last 4 years -
to the extent that the coal we bought in 2013 hasn't been touched and we
have burnt far less wood in the stove too.

You see, you are doung exactly what I said. Of coure fuel bills are less
tehse days. We have better insulated homes.

Who now lives outsoide a city where the c9old weather is actually
exoerienced?


Do you actually live in the UK? Or is your memory failing?

I must update my killfile again as I've just started seeing your posts
again.



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 20/01/18 12:28, RJH wrote:
On 20/01/2018 11:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-20, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier':


Those who don't accept a link between human activity and climate.

Largely bvecause there isn't one.

They dont accept a link between the death of Princess Diana and lights
seen in the sky over S****horpe, either.

And they dont accept that the moon landings were faked in a studio



It's a meaningless phrase used by those who feel the world should be run
by them and people like them (using climate change as an excuse) about
people who don't.


Can't speak for everyone, of course, but the last person I'd want
running the world is me :-)


Given the above, that shows remarkable common sense



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 20/01/18 13:32, newshound wrote:
On 18/01/2018 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Or when they run models backwards and find things like the little ice
age, medieval warm period, dark ages, Roman warm period etc.

Or even manage to get "ordinary" ice ages, rather than snowball earth.
Or even manage *in the same paper* to clearly show that colling due to
Pinatuboo was exactly as predicted by the albedo change with *NO
AMPLIFICATION DUE TO 'POSITIVE FEEDBACK'* that subtarcted from the
effects of global warming due to CO2 as predicted by *USING
AMPLIFICATION DUE TO 'POSITIVE FEEDBACK'*

You couldn't make it up.

But they do.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that.

Tribute to her giving away taxpayer's money to buy votes would be a better
description. And forbidding councils to use that money to build more
social housing shows exactly what her true reasons were.


Blair enslaved them again.

Using words like Humpty Dumpty did yet again, Turnip?

But then I'd not expect a philosopher living in his own tiny bubble to
know what enslavement means.

--
*Modulation in all things *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:31:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/18 11:04, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 09:02:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This winter has been as dull as wet and snowy and as cold as any I can
remember since I was a boy in the 50s.

Really? You have had temperatures of minus 10 degrees C (and lower)
this winter?

yes

Gosh, I don't know where you live but I imagine it must be Shawbury
(Shropshire) as that has recorded temperatures below minus 10 degrees C
this winter..possibly other places have too and I'm sure you'll educate
me.


You have had deep snow that has lasted for weeks on end? You
have had short periods of heavy snow lasting up to a week that have
completely covered cars?


Not this yesar. That was 2010

OK so this year has *not* been as snowy for you then - nor indeed for
many people.

Our fuel bills have certainly been a lot cheaper over the last 4 years
- to the extent that the coal we bought in 2013 hasn't been touched and
we have burnt far less wood in the stove too.

You see, you are doung exactly what I said. Of coure fuel bills are less
tehse days. We have better insulated homes.

You seem to have a problem reading what is written. There has been no
additional insulation in our house in the period I refer to. Perhaps you
would care to explain why we have used less fuel in the past few years
when no extra insulation has been put in and, if anything, we keep the
house warmer than we used to.


Who now lives outsoide a city where the c9old weather is actually
exoerienced?

Ahh, I deduce from that you probably live in or close to a city - where
you have experienced temperatures this winter of minus 10 degrees C or
colder! I don't - I live around a 1000 ft asl on the edge of a moor with
few other homes within a half-mile radius. The nearest one to us is
across fields and accessed by a different road. Our lowest temperature
this year has been minus 4 degrees C. I'm glad we haven't experienced
the cold that you have had this year.

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

On 20-Jan-18 12:28 PM, RJH wrote:
On 20/01/2018 11:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-20, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier':


Those who don't accept a link between human activity and climate.

So, it is a misnomer, as it is not climate change that is being denied.
It is your belief as to the cause that is in dispute. Presumably you use
the term denier to imply that their views are, somehow, less valid than
your own. Unbeliever would probably be more in keeping with the status
of anthropogenic climate change as a system of belief that has not been
proven.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:











http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

--
Tim Lamb

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

For every middle-aged couple doing nicely out of selling their council
houses to by-to-let landlords there is a young family struggling in
private rented accommodation because there is no social housing, or rent
control. And don't tell me it is because of 'immigrants' because that
is a lie.


--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather. Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us. I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year.

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted
until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or
snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.

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

Solar panels would have worked a treat, then, eh?

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

--

Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter posted
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

For every middle-aged couple doing nicely out of selling their council
houses to by-to-let landlords there is a young family struggling in
private rented accommodation because there is no social housing, or rent
control. And don't tell me it is because of 'immigrants' because that
is a lie.

I doubt if anybody has said it is *solely* due to immigration, just that
that is one of the main causes. Personally I don't see how you can let
the population increase by several millions without creating a shortage
of dwellings, unless you build far more than we have done. Is that
really a lie?

--
Jack

in 1661237 20180120 142839 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 11:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

It is rather difficult to draw long term climate conclusions from
anecdotal experience of British weather.Â* Might be possible for a much
more long lived species than us.Â*Â* I just missed 1947 as a benchmark,
but I think 1963 was somewhat worse than this year.

It was. In Crawley it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and that snow lasted
until 6th March 1963. Further, the snow was no good for snowballs or
snowmen, so it must have stayed below -5C during that whole period.

1963 was a winter like no other, before or since.

Wrong, 1947 was much worse.


It cant be used to make a point either way.

Neither can the summer of 1975, which to my mind was hotter than
anything since.

I think you mean 1976.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:48:51 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:



It cant be used to make a point either way.

Neither can the summer of 1975, which to my mind was hotter than
anything since.

I think you mean 1976.


I do remember that the summer 1975 had some periods of really warm
and dry days after a poor spring to the extent that I went out and
bought a Triumph Spitfire as it was warm and dry enough to consider a
convertable. , it was a toss up between that and the more fashionable
MG Midget. The Spitfire had more room behind the seats ,just enough to
accommodate a 3rd person if small and flexible which qualification
applied to a few young ladies I knew.
The Spitfire also came with a hardtop so that swung it.
What made 1976 memorable was the longevity as much as anything ,
I lived in digs and did not have room to store the hardtop so in the
spring put in my Grans cellar 90 miles away in London and then like a
pillock forgot to pick up the soft top which had been stored there
since the autumn of 75 which after the fine weather in June July
August gave way to a wet september.
As it turned out I did not need either top for months .

G.Harman

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

For every middle-aged couple doing nicely out of selling their council
houses to by-to-let landlords there is a young family struggling in
private rented accommodation because there is no social housing, or rent
control. And don't tell me it is because of 'immigrants' because that
is a lie.

Quite. Had the money raised from selling council houses been used to build
more 'affordable' housing, I'd have had no objection. Except perhaps
selling existing ones at well below market value.

But this would be against the Thatcher principle of creating more Tory
voters by buying them.

--
*Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
I doubt if anybody has said it is *solely* due to immigration, just that
that is one of the main causes. Personally I don't see how you can let
the population increase by several millions without creating a shortage
of dwellings, unless you build far more than we have done. Is that
really a lie?

We seems happy enough to build new transport services to cope with the
demand from an increased population. Why should housing etc be any
different?

The vast number of immigrants pay their way in the UK same as any other,
through taxes etc. A well run government would make sure there is enough
taxation etc to pay for all essential services.

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
I do remember that the summer 1975 had some periods of really warm
and dry days after a poor spring to the extent that I went out and
bought a Triumph Spitfire as it was warm and dry enough to consider a
convertable. , it was a toss up between that and the more fashionable
MG Midget.

I bought a year old Midget in '71 as a write off. Had hit a tree and
rolled. And insured with one of those companies which went bankrupt.

Stripped it down and sent the base off to be jigged straight, which
involved welding in a new front subframe. Bought near new front end from
John Britain who produced a kit car base on the Midget.

The hood and frame were both scrap, so I ran it with only a tonneau cover
throughout that winter, until I'd saved up for a new hood and frame.

Sold the car at a slight profit (excluding my labour) a couple of years
down the line.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/01/2018 16:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 12:28 PM, RJH wrote:
On 20/01/2018 11:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-01-20, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jan-18 8:19 AM, RJH wrote:
...
I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

What do you mean by 'climate denier':


Those who don't accept a link between human activity and climate.

So, it is a misnomer, as it is not climate change that is being denied.
It is your belief as to the cause that is in dispute. Presumably you use
the term denier to imply that their views are, somehow, less valid than
your own. Unbeliever would probably be more in keeping with the status
of anthropogenic climate change as a system of belief that has not been
proven.


No, not my belief - keep those out of it for the moment!

My understanding of the phrase is that a climate change denier refutes
the notion that the climate is changing because of human activity. Is
that not correct?


--
Cheers, Rob

On 21/01/18 14:22, RJH wrote:

My understanding of the phrase is that a climate change denier refutes
the notion that the climate is changing because of human activity. Is
that not correct?


...climate is changing SIGNIFICANTLY because of human activity.

Obviously if someone farts and adds an extra teaspoon of methane to the
atmosphere, it changes the climate.

Just not by very much...



--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 21-Jan-18 2:22 PM, RJH wrote:
....
My understanding of the phrase is that a climate change denier refutes
the notion that the climate is changing because of human activity. Is
that not correct?

If you are a believer in that concept and you want to imply that it is
the only truth, then that is what it means to you. To others, it means
that the person using it holds immutable beliefs and is unwilling to
consider alternative explanations.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 20/01/2018 06:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/18 22:44, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather
cant be predicted, neither can climate

I can't predict what you'll roll on a die. Roll it enough times and
the average is pretty clear.


Indeed. But the rollong of dice is not chaotic

Lets say you have a video camera hooked up, and if it detects that 12
sixes are rolled in a row, a switch will close and you will be
electrocuted. Now predict in a year of dice rolling, whether or not you
will be killed, and when...


I think you'll find not even the most ardent warmists are claiming to
predict the next killer hurricane.

Andy

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 19:31:11 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

For every middle-aged couple doing nicely out of selling their council
houses to by-to-let landlords there is a young family struggling in
private rented accommodation because there is no social housing, or rent
control. And don't tell me it is because of 'immigrants' because that
is a lie.


No it's not a lie.
Where do you suppose the two million (known) immigrants are living?

On 22/01/2018 07:06, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 19:31:11 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip

Maggie was all for emancipating the working class. Thousands of self
owned ex-council houses are tribute to that. Blair enslaved them again.

For every middle-aged couple doing nicely out of selling their council
houses to by-to-let landlords there is a young family struggling in
private rented accommodation because there is no social housing, or rent
control. And don't tell me it is because of 'immigrants' because that
is a lie.


No it's not a lie.
Where do you suppose the two million (known) immigrants are living?


Its irrelevant as leaving the EU only affects the migrants from the EU
and the immigrants will be staying here.
Lievers tend not to know the difference between immigrants and migrants
as shown by their mistaken belief that immigrants will be sent home.

On 20/01/2018 17:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, AndrewÂ* wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:










http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

If we can send ethernet over a ring main, then all you need is
chip-enabled applicances telling the smart meter what sort of
device they are. Electronically, a piece of cake.

On 20/01/2018 17:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, AndrewÂ* wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:










http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

That could work with a very old-fashioned car battery charger, but an EV
charger will be a sophisticated switch-mode unit with power factor
correction.

Cheers
--
Clive

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
I doubt if anybody has said it is *solely* due to immigration, just that
that is one of the main causes. Personally I don't see how you can let
the population increase by several millions without creating a shortage
of dwellings, unless you build far more than we have done. Is that
really a lie?

We seems happy enough to build new transport services to cope with the
demand from an increased population. Why should housing etc be any
different?

That argument can be made, but it presupposes that immigration is indeed
one of the causes of the housing shortage, rather than this being a
"lie" as Roger said.

--
Jack