OT: Climate Change Bullshit

The attributions were perfectly clear in your post.

Others might like to speculate why Cursitor Doom couldn't follow them.

A fair point.

I know one person who is paying thousands of pounds to get the right paperwork w.r.t. a Greek grandfather. That's significant commitment.

I've posted previously w.r.t. Andre Geim's group and Robert Winston's colleagues.

There is currently a widespread dissatisfaction, since the financial scandals a decade ago. It manifests itself in different ways in different people. It is complicated.

However, Facebook has allowed malefactors to understand each individuals' dissatisfaction, and to spear-fish them by pushing their specific button.

Nothing straw man about it and it isnt an argument either, it?s a statement of fact that you overstated that claim of yours about things were done previously.

Obvious lie.

How odd that you claimed that it wasn?t.

You never had one.

He had it hoping that the result would be to stay and that that would shut up his MPs that wanted to leave.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.

He had already faced them down.

It certainly is sampled temperatures from planet Earth, which is ALL in contact with temperatures of the land wherever the wind blows: the temperature of the Sahara is represented in the surface winds, and mixes into the same atmosphere that kisses all the lands and waters. Small hotspots (the Sahara) and lumpy nonliquid waters (ice floes) aren't the average that is reported, of course; that oughtn't surprise anyone.

We commonly assume the laws of thermodynamics, that 2 + 2 = 4, and that Tuesday follows Monday. Every new use of any physical law or other principle is an extrapolation in some sense. Your words sound like a criticism, but are too undirected for any real test of the true/false type. Truthiness is not enough; science always proceeds after rejecting such untestable assertions.

What does ownership of your home (or contracted rights to same) *per se* give me or you?

Only to an idiot.

For now.

And you are still missing the point. The idea was to learn about the average surface temperature of the globe as a whole. The ocean surface is 70% of that area, the Sahara a much smaller proportion.

Except that you assume that the temperature of one relatively small area is an important contribution to a global average, which is stupidity, rather than extrapolation.

The proposition that the isotope ratios in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores are a useful guide to the average temperature of the globe as a whole is a testable proposition - the two areas sampled are about as far apart as they could be.

If you want a historical climate information for the Sahara as a whole it does seem to exist - apparently it moves between wet and dry on a 41 thousand year cycle

while the ice ages are currently on a 100,000 year cycle.

Boris Johnson isn't an ideas man, but he does love adopting controversial ideas, even if he doesn't understand what the controversy is about.

But not such a rotten deal as a "no-deal Brexit" would be.

Thwarting the will of the more gullible fraction of the population - and Cursitor Doom is clearly a member of the extremely gullible fraction - is necessary for their own good, not to mention the good of the rest of the country.

ure

This is total nonsense. The French lobbied for the EC's common agricultural policy, which was introduced in 1962.

It did provide support for small and inefficient farms, but the intention w as to progressively persuade small farmers to amalgamate their farms into u nits big enough to be practical, over a time scale of about a generation, s o that when the farmer got old enough to have to give up they'd be much mor e likely to sell the farm to a more prosperous neighbour than pass it on to one of their kids.

I got told about this in Australia by a graduate student in agricultural ec onomics in 1965, when I was a graduate student in physical chemistry.

The policy seems to have worked, and funding the Common Agricultural Policy costs a lot less than it used to.

Australia had the same kind of problem - on a much smaller scale - which is what makes the Natioanl Country party such an expensive coalition partner.

The fuel price thing was a tipping point maybe. The EU promoted diesel for decades to Save The Earth; about 2/3 of the cars in France are diesel, and now the diesel owners are being punished to Save The Earth.

The EU messed up big time on not verifying compliance to clean-diesel standards. It took some guys at West Virginia University to discover the fraud.

Turbos are a similar cheat switch.

More like save people's lungs from particulates and NOx.

In addition diesel is more efficient, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable to push diesel.

My understanding is that they did comply with the standards, but the standards could be gamed. Is the fault in the standards or in the gamimg?

Exactly the same thing occurred with some computer benchmarks in the 90s. The compiler was frigged so it detected it was compiling the benchmark code, and simply output pre-defined hand-optimised object code.

Not strictly a fraud, but obeying the letter of the law rather than its spirit. That's what happens when given inappropriate goals.

The VW thing was clearly fraud, and people went to prison for participating. VW programmed the emissions computer to specifically recognize the dyno test and go into low-emissions, low-performance mode.

"The EU is a Threat to Democracy | Jacob Rees-Mogg | Oxford Union" Speech:

-- Kevin Aylward

Diesel owners aren't being punished to save the earth - the government need s more tax revenue and decided to rip it off the owners of diesel cars. The government may have claimed that it was trying to save the earth, but it h asn't taxed air-travel, which is a much worse source of CO2 emissions, so i t is lying (as governments frequently do).

But the fraud was perpetrated by various car manufacturers, who also fooled the US EPA

The problem came to light in turbo-charged diesel-engined cars - which may be what John Larkin had in mind, but may have been sadly incapable of artic ulating clearly.

James Rees-Mogg is a threat to democracy and reason - he thinks he thinks, and he thinks he knows best. Neither appears to be true.

Rees-Mogg preaches that it will be economically better outside the EU.

Rees-Mogg moves his financial services company from the UK to a financially better place, i.e. inside the EU.

Rees-Mogg is a polite and charming hypocrite that is only interested in his own political fortunes.

But it still passed the tests didn't it?

It is certainly a threat to how his companies make money.

Says it all really. The likes of Turnip wants to go back to steam engine days when the UK ruled the world. And isn't alone in this. So instead of the UK taking advantage of worldwide demand for renewable energy, and designing and building such things, he prefers to stick his head in the sand and let other countries reap the benefit. All for one of his so called principles. Then blame the UK's lack of vision on the EU. Exactly the same has been happening since tape video recorder days, and has continued through the IT revolution and on to electric cars, etc. But he still thinks it's the EU's fault, and the UK will do well on its own in the big bad world. Presumably selling BSA Bantams to the third world.

Didn't realise Turnip was such an avid Mail reader. But even that has changed its tune.

What is true for his operation isnt necessarily true for the entire UK and he hasn?t moved his whole operation to Ireland anyway, just taken some insurance in case that fool May ends up with a brexit in name only.