It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert. Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
....and the temperaure in a semi-urban part of 1850s London is always going to be a degree or two higher in 2015 at the same site because of the heat sink effect of urbanisation.
His brother appears to have received many more braincells. I don't agree with his politics either, but he does run his own pretty successful business and not feed from the AGW trough either.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
Pardon?
Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is real, it's happening right NOW and it's the BIGGEST issue to confront us all. Every major political organisation in this country acknowledges that AGW is a fact. Can you give me credible scientific evidence that this is NOT happening?
We are already half way there to the 2C increase threshold. This is VERY frightening.
Meanwhile October 2015 was the warmest October ever recorded and 2015 will almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded following on from 2014 which was at the time the warmest year ever recorded.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
He has obviously not been up Wilmslow Road recently ....
Neither have I. My palate has been Anglicised.
How can your palate have been Anglicised - you were born in Yorkshire. OK, you lived in Mordor for a bit but that is just across the Pennines not the bleedin' Himalayas.
@MrHarryCole: Corbyn flitting between begging his Shad Cab to change their minds then patronising them and then subtly threatening them. #StraightTalking
In the year 2000. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. So if you are a "believer" then there is no chance of snow.
The climate sceptics are not going around saying "no more white winters for the UK". The government funded ones did that in 2000 funded by the tax payers.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
It is the premise that kills us (sceptics).
Please explain, in terms that a non-scientific person such as myself can understand, how in 1850 they could measure the temperature to such an exact degree (!) before we had televisions, petrol-fuelled cars, telephones, iPADs, Arsenal Football Club, etc, etc...
But we had thermometers that could measure globally (globally!!) to a fraction of a degree what the temperature was.
''I'd suggest trying a great deal harder in that case or curry houses training some Asian women as well.''
I think for some business people, its either they employ overseas workers or they close the business down. English people simply will not do that work for that pay.
A hotelier in a seaside town intimated as much to me the other day. Its the Lithuanian chambermaids that keep him afloat.
English people? forget it, despite the town being full of folk who are manifestly on benefits.
The Times did a series of articles on immigration a few months ago. The owner of one pub chain was quite frank. English workers were too ambitious. They wanted to get promotion, and left for rivals who offered them promotion. Foreign workers were much more biddable.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
That stems from the fact that so many lies were told by some of the senior figures in the field and that they have persisted in trying to hide the raw data on which they base their findings.
We know from their emails that they will do everything they can to prevent any challenge to their opinions which tends to make sensible people doubt their claims.
Mrs C, clearly we need a PB-sponsored investigative committee on lingerie management. A short period of deliberation, say, 8-12 months, should do the trick.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I certainly don't see it as something to lose sleep over.
Will have a looksee. I've just bought the autobiog of art forger Shaun Greenhalgh mentioned in the STimes feature - if it's half as good as the write up - it'll be the best £25 I've spent in a while. I hope my signed copy isn't a forgery!
''I'd suggest trying a great deal harder in that case or curry houses training some Asian women as well.''
I think for some business people, its either they employ overseas workers or they close the business down. English people simply will not do that work for that pay.
A hotelier in a seaside town intimated as much to me the other day. Its the Lithuanian chambermaids that keep him afloat.
English people? forget it, despite the town being full of folk who are manifestly on benefits.
There is an ugly truth to this about the business model used for these kind of eating establishments. They make money because the cash is not declared and the people working there are extended family, often here unofficially and get paid in accommodation, food and a small amount of pocket money. It all falls apart when you start having to pay people a salary.
'He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.'
Pure comedy gold from the man for all seasons.
I'm sure @NickPalmer will be very flattered to be compared to Sir Thomas More, but I disagree with you
To TCPolicicalBetting at 12.06 Thanks for that... and of course Arctic ice should have totally disappeared twice over by now. Arctic ice is affected as much by sea currentts as much as anything and the resultant changes in sea temps.
The vast vast vast amount of CO2 produced world wide is done perfectly naturally. The amount produced mechanically by man is miniscule.
His brother appears to have received many more braincells. I don't agree with his politics either, but he does run his own pretty successful business and not feed from the AGW trough either.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
Pardon?
Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is real, it's happening right NOW and it's the BIGGEST issue to confront us all. Every major political organisation in this country acknowledges that AGW is a fact. Can you give me credible scientific evidence that this is NOT happening?
We are already half way there to the 2C increase threshold. This is VERY frightening.
Meanwhile October 2015 was the warmest October ever recorded and 2015 will almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded following on from 2014 which was at the time the warmest year ever recorded.
Wrong. The biggest issue to confront us all is NOT climate change directly. It is the CO2 released in feeding the world's population, and providing energy to the world's population.
China has earned the right to put out CO2 by its 30 years of single child policy.
The rest of the world? Not so much. Special black mark goes to the Catholic Church for its attitude to contraception.
Want to save the planet? Stop having so many kids. Anybody with 3 or more children worried about the planet should eat one of them for Christmas, instead of a turkey. That includes you, Prime Minister.
'He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.'
Pure comedy gold from the man for all seasons.
I'm sure @NickPalmer will be very flattered to be compared to Sir Thomas More, but I disagree with you
'I saw some pathetic argument on Sky on Monday about the shortage of Indian chefs and how we ought to import more. Why don't they train some then?
It's not beyond the wit of man to train up people who aren't Indian to make curries.'
Agree, a very large proportion of 'Indian' restaurants in the UK are in fact Bangladeshi run and as the film clip showed not a female to be seen in the kitchen area or restaurant.
According to today's paper there was a government backed attempt to do just this and after a four week recruitment drive, they had just two people interested in the course.
There have been government-led attempts to attract British chefs to curry colleges, while owners have hired Poles and Romanians to churn out chicken birianis and lamb vindaloos. But these largely flopped; typical was a recent four-week campaign to drum up 16 recruits for a course in east London that attracted only two applicants. East Europeans often fail to stick around long, given the range of other jobs on offer. So the result is a curry crisis, threatening something that has become as identifiably British as fish and chips.
Well, tough. If the job is only appealing to people who live in the Third World, the restrateurs will just have to offer better wages to attract workers who live in the UK.
Or buy in meals from Brake Bros. and stick them in the microwave.
This is from last month, my eyes have yet to stop rolling at this.
Curries would be tastier if Britain left EU and let in Asian chefs, claim Tory MPs
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
He has obviously not been up Wilmslow Road recently ....
Neither have I. My palate has been Anglicised.
How can your palate have been Anglicised - you were born in Yorkshire. OK, you lived in Mordor for a bit but that is just across the Pennines not the bleedin' Himalayas.
I grew up eating hot spicy food on a daily basis.
Then I moved away from home and I ate nearly exclusively English food for over 15 years.
Now when I have a lot of hot and spicy stuff than I'm used to, the result is an internal blitzkrieg, with my lower intestine playing the part of Poland.
His brother appears to have received many more braincells. I don't agree with his politics either, but he does run his own pretty successful business and not feed from the AGW trough either.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
Pardon?
Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is real, it's happening right NOW and it's the BIGGEST issue to confront us all. Every major political organisation in this country acknowledges that AGW is a fact. Can you give me credible scientific evidence that this is NOT happening?
We are already half way there to the 2C increase threshold. This is VERY frightening.
Meanwhile October 2015 was the warmest October ever recorded and 2015 will almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded following on from 2014 which was at the time the warmest year ever recorded.
Wrong. The biggest issue to confront us all is NOT climate change directly. It is the CO2 released in feeding the world's population, and providing energy to the world's population.
China has earned the right to put out CO2 by its 30 years of single child policy.
The rest of the world? Not so much. Special black mark goes to the Catholic Church for its attitude to contraception.
Want to save the planet? Stop having so many kids. Anybody with 3 or more children worried about the planet should eat one of them for Christmas, instead of a turkey. That includes you, Prime Minister.
The human population has, what, quintupled over the last 500 years - more CO2 in farts and breath
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a very sizeable chunk of Labour MPs (say 50) decide that SDP mk II is the only viable route out of this for them.
When would they be best advised to make this move? Both in strictly chronological terms, and in terms of what event they should use as provocation?
Trident
If the decision is made to break, it would be better to do so actively rather than reactively, putting forward a short manifesto beforehand.
I think that's right. The question is what to put in the short manifesto. I think this party would need to be clearly anti-Tory on the economy. They'd set out to oppose Osborne more effectively than Labour. They'd need to distinguish themselves from Labour by being anti-terrorist, patriotic, maybe with something of the Blue Labour agenda? Not Blairite though. I don't think that will fly right now.
@paulwaugh: Syria: No10 just released David Cameron's motion for UK military action Tries to meet Labour conference motion tests https://t.co/j1Jy63kuEQ
In the year 2000. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. So if you are a "believer" then there is no chance of snow.
Published in 1990, nine thousand days ago. So, are we saved or are we doomed?
It the apocalyptic nature of the predictions, followed by "ho hum, not quite right last time", followed by "Doomed!!" that's created the scepticism. Too much wolf-crying (and it's worth remembering that in that story, there was a wolf in the end).
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
In the year 2000. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. So if you are a "believer" then there is no chance of snow.
Published in 1990, nine thousand days ago. So, are we saved or are we doomed?
It the apocalyptic nature of the predictions, followed by "ho hum, not quite right last time", followed by "Doomed!!" that's created the scepticism. Too much wolf-crying (and it's worth remembering that in that story, there was a wolf in the end).
Quite - that's my Bayesian basis for "(b) not as much as some claim"
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
It is the premise that kills us (sceptics).
Please explain, in terms that a non-scientific person such as myself can understand, how in 1850 they could measure the temperature to such an exact degree (!) before we had televisions, petrol-fuelled cars, telephones, iPADs, Arsenal Football Club, etc, etc...
But we had thermometers that could measure globally (globally!!) to a fraction of a degree what the temperature was.
Using thermometers we cannot measure globally now. Ground based measurements are adjusted interpolated extrapolated and basterdised before use and inconvenient measurements ignored. Ground based measurements are worthless. All satellite atmospheric measurements show no global warming.
'I saw some pathetic argument on Sky on Monday about the shortage of Indian chefs and how we ought to import more. Why don't they train some then?
It's not beyond the wit of man to train up people who aren't Indian to make curries.'
Agree, a very large proportion of 'Indian' restaurants in the UK are in fact Bangladeshi run and as the film clip showed not a female to be seen in the kitchen area or restaurant.
According to today's paper there was a government backed attempt to do just this and after a four week recruitment drive, they had just two people interested in the course.
There have been government-led attempts to attract British chefs to curry colleges, while owners have hired Poles and Romanians to churn out chicken birianis and lamb vindaloos. But these largely flopped; typical was a recent four-week campaign to drum up 16 recruits for a course in east London that attracted only two applicants. East Europeans often fail to stick around long, given the range of other jobs on offer. So the result is a curry crisis, threatening something that has become as identifiably British as fish and chips.
Well, tough. If the job is only appealing to people who live in the Third World, the restrateurs will just have to offer better wages to attract workers who live in the UK.
Or buy in meals from Brake Bros. and stick them in the microwave.
This is from last month, my eyes have yet to stop rolling at this.
Curries would be tastier if Britain left EU and let in Asian chefs, claim Tory MPs
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
His brother appears to have received many more braincells. I don't agree with his politics either, but he does run his own pretty successful business and not feed from the AGW trough either.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
Pardon?
Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is real, it's happening right NOW and it's the BIGGEST issue to confront us all. Every major political organisation in this country acknowledges that AGW is a fact. Can you give me credible scientific evidence that this is NOT happening?
We are already half way there to the 2C increase threshold. This is VERY frightening.
Meanwhile October 2015 was the warmest October ever recorded and 2015 will almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded following on from 2014 which was at the time the warmest year ever recorded.
Wrong. The biggest issue to confront us all is NOT climate change directly. It is the CO2 released in feeding the world's population, and providing energy to the world's population.
China has earned the right to put out CO2 by its 30 years of single child policy.
The rest of the world? Not so much. Special black mark goes to the Catholic Church for its attitude to contraception.
Want to save the planet? Stop having so many kids. Anybody with 3 or more children worried about the planet should eat one of them for Christmas, instead of a turkey. That includes you, Prime Minister.
The human population has, what, quintupled over the last 500 years - more CO2 in farts and breath
Not to mention eating fish, meat and wheat and other grains. And forcing teh agriculture industry to adopt intensive farming techniques which essentially destroy natural habitat and flora and fauna.
See the rainforests as an example.. or the English wheatfields.. Monoculture at its worst.
And people complain about a shortage of bees!
(I keep bees so the impact of man on the insect population - which feeds birds etc- is of great interest..)
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
In the year 2000. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. So if you are a "believer" then there is no chance of snow.
Or stuff like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/5000-Days-Planet-Edward-Goldsmith/dp/0600571564 Published in 1990, nine thousand days ago. So, are we saved or are we doomed? It the apocalyptic nature of the predictions, followed by "ho hum, not quite right last time", followed by "Doomed!!" that's created the scepticism. Too much wolf-crying (and it's worth remembering that in that story, there was a wolf in the end).
25 years later and we have even more forecasts of our doom.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
There are always sceptics, some thought tobacco was not harmful and these tended to be funded by the cigarette companies. The trouble is that in the case of AGW there are tipping points where after a certain amount of warming a positive feedback effect starts to take place. For example if permafrost starts melting methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, is given off. OK the models aren't perfect so nobody can be sure where these tipping points will occur. But if/when the tipping point is reached the effects will be dramatic. What is depressing is the way that the debate on climate change has become politicised. Right wingers, who may be right on many things, by default seem to be climate sceptics. See this piece in The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4625947.ece
Hopefully governments, companies and individuals will take actions which will avert the worst scenarios - and incidentally save them money over the longer term. Build the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and benefit from free, dependable power http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33053003 Switch to LED lightbulbs and save 80%+ off your lighting bill.
'I saw some pathetic argument on Sky on Monday about the shortage of Indian chefs and how we ought to import more. Why don't they train some then?
It's not beyond the wit of man to train up people who aren't Indian to make curries.'
Agree, a very large proportion of 'Indian' restaurants in the UK are in fact Bangladeshi run and as the film clip showed not a female to be seen in the kitchen area or restaurant.
According to today's paper there was a government backed attempt to do just this and after a four week recruitment drive, they had just two people interested in the course.
There have been government-led attempts to attract British chefs to curry colleges, while owners have hired Poles and Romanians to churn out chicken birianis and lamb vindaloos. But these largely flopped; typical was a recent four-week campaign to drum up 16 recruits for a course in east London that attracted only two applicants. East Europeans often fail to stick around long, given the range of other jobs on offer. So the result is a curry crisis, threatening something that has become as identifiably British as fish and chips.
Well, tough. If the job is only appealing to people who live in the Third World, the restrateurs will just have to offer better wages to attract workers who live in the UK.
Or buy in meals from Brake Bros. and stick them in the microwave.
This is from last month, my eyes have yet to stop rolling at this.
Curries would be tastier if Britain left EU and let in Asian chefs, claim Tory MPs
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
My prior for (e) would be Malthus.
20/1 Bickley?
Fair enough quote, was hoping for 33/1! Will wait until he wins ( ) and see what the bookies say...
I don't think CCHQ are particulary bothered about whether UKIP wins in Oldham or not. From a purely party-political point of view, there are pros and cons for the Tories.
Advantages of a UKIP win:
- It would leave UKIP with two MPs who disagree on almost everything, making UKIP party unity even more strained than it currently is - It would encourage UKIP to shift their focus on to taking votes off Labour, which potentially would be a very good thing from the Tory point of view - It would intensify the civil war in Labour (if that's possible!) - It would cement the idea that Labour are divided, extreme and unelectable
Disadvantages of a UKIP win:
- It would revive the flagging morale of UKIP and give them some momentum at a time when they are not doing particularly well, which in turn could lead to a longer-term revival - It might push Labour into such a frenzy of civil war that Corbyn might actually be displaced in the chaos, although that's probably only a small risk
On balance, I think they'd probably slightly prefer a narrow Labour win, a result bad enough to keep the civil war bubbling along nicely but not so bad as to lead to something actually being done about Corbyn and the entryists.
Mr. Song, as your last point implies, it's worth noting there is actually a lot of overlap between what sceptics and believers think we should do.
More energy efficiency saves money and (if you believe in it) helps avert global warming. Some renewables, especially geothermal, are a very good idea.
'I saw some pathetic argument on Sky on Monday about the shortage of Indian chefs and how we ought to import more. Why don't they train some then?
It's not beyond the wit of man to train up people who aren't Indian to make curries.'
Agree, a very large proportion of 'Indian' restaurants in the UK are in fact Bangladeshi run and as the film clip showed not a female to be seen in the kitchen area or restaurant.
According to today's paper there was a government backed attempt to do just this and after a four week recruitment drive, they had just two people interested in the course.
There have been government-led attempts to attract British chefs to curry colleges, while owners have hired Poles and Romanians to churn out chicken birianis and lamb vindaloos. But these largely flopped; typical was a recent four-week campaign to drum up 16 recruits for a course in east London that attracted only two applicants. East Europeans often fail to stick around long, given the range of other jobs on offer. So the result is a curry crisis, threatening something that has become as identifiably British as fish and chips.
Well, tough. If the job is only appealing to people who live in the Third World, the restrateurs will just have to offer better wages to attract workers who live in the UK.
Or buy in meals from Brake Bros. and stick them in the microwave.
This is from last month, my eyes have yet to stop rolling at this.
Curries would be tastier if Britain left EU and let in Asian chefs, claim Tory MPs
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
Even in the Medieval period there were variations.
I have again been spending a lot of time in the fourteenth century these past few months trying to understand what went on and why. Anyway, starting around around about 1210 maybe 1215 the weather (climate?) in England started to change summers became a wetter and the winters warmer. As a result there was no famine in England from 1220. The population grew very rapidly in that time. New settlements were created and a lot of new farms were opened on land that had never been farmed before.
Then in 1315 it all changed, or rather the climate changed and apparently quite suddenly. 1315 saw the first mass harvest failure and the first famine for nearly a hundred years. What we would now call extreme whether events became the norm and England was wracked with famine and food shortages in a scale that had not been seen since the eleventh century.
Now, what man made effects were going on to cause those climate changes? If someone can give me an answer to that I might start to take this AGW stuff seriously.
As to the Scientific Consensus, Pah! I am amazed that someone as well educated and seemingly sensible as Mr. Meeks, gent of this parish, should even consider such a thing. two points:
1. The scientific consensus is no more than the consensus of the wise men, time after time across history such consensus views have been proven to be false, including some in the field of astronomy very recently.
2. Anyone who thinks that scientists always work in search of the truth has never come across the process for bidding for funds and research grants.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
Lingerie management is straightforward and the results are beyond dispute and easily demonstrated :
In the year 2000. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. So if you are a "believer" then there is no chance of snow.
Or stuff like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/5000-Days-Planet-Edward-Goldsmith/dp/0600571564 Published in 1990, nine thousand days ago. So, are we saved or are we doomed? It the apocalyptic nature of the predictions, followed by "ho hum, not quite right last time", followed by "Doomed!!" that's created the scepticism. Too much wolf-crying (and it's worth remembering that in that story, there was a wolf in the end).
25 years later and we have even more forecasts of our doom.
Those of us who grew u in the sixties are used to predictions of impending doom - then it was oil and other critical resources would run out in the 80s.....the argument against that was that human ingenuity would find other sources......
I don't think CCHQ are particulary bothered about whether UKIP wins in Oldham or not. From a purely party-political point of view, there are pros and cons for the Tories.
Advantages of a UKIP win:
- It would leave UKIP with two MPs who disagree on almost everything, making UKIP party unity even more strained than it currently is - It would encourage UKIP to shift their focus on to taking votes off Labour, which potentially would be a very good thing from the Tory point of view - It would intensify the civil war in Labour (if that's possible!) - It would cement the idea that Labour are divided, extreme and unelectable
Disadvantages of a UKIP win:
- It would revive the flagging morale of UKIP and give them some momentum at a time when they are not doing particularly well, which in turn could lead to a longer-term revival - It might push Labour into such a frenzy of civil war that Corbyn might actually be displaced in the chaos, although that's probably only a small risk
On balance, I think they'd probably slightly prefer a narrow Labour win, a result bad enough to keep the civil war bubbling along nicely but not so bad as to lead to something actually being done about Corbyn and the entryists.
What do Carswell and Bickley disagree on?
They are UKIP representatives and if you have two or more in the same room they are bound to fall out and form opposing factions.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
Lingerie management is straightforward and the results are beyond dispute and easily demonstrated :
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
My prior for (e) would be Malthus.
20/1 Bickley?
Fair enough quote, was hoping for 33/1! Will wait until he wins ( ) and see what the bookies say...
His brother appears to have received many more braincells. I don't agree with his politics either, but he does run his own pretty successful business and not feed from the AGW trough either.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
Pardon?
Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is real, it's happening right NOW and it's the BIGGEST issue to confront us all. Every major political organisation in this country acknowledges that AGW is a fact. Can you give me credible scientific evidence that this is NOT happening?
We are already half way there to the 2C increase threshold. This is VERY frightening.
Meanwhile October 2015 was the warmest October ever recorded and 2015 will almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded following on from 2014 which was at the time the warmest year ever recorded.
Britain still not as warm as it was in Roman times though.
The "half-way" to a 2C increase, just means 1C since the last mini ice-age. These time periods are arbitrary.
Those Romans had a lot of heavy industry and burnt a lot of fuel .... maybe?
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
Lingerie management is straightforward and the results are beyond dispute and easily demonstrated :
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
My prior for (e) would be Malthus.
20/1 Bickley?
Fair enough quote, was hoping for 33/1! Will wait until he wins ( ) and see what the bookies say...
Oh if he wins that price is not available!
Naturally - but I reckon a bookie might go out at 16s then...
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
"(no dentist will tell you this)"
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
Absolutely dreadful! Why on earth would it be healthy to have a mouth (which has glands etc. and needs to maintain a balanced PH and ecosystem) full of abrasive chemicals?
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
It is the premise that kills us (sceptics).
Please explain, in terms that a non-scientific person such as myself can understand, how in 1850 they could measure the temperature to such an exact degree (!) before we had televisions, petrol-fuelled cars, telephones, iPADs, Arsenal Football Club, etc, etc...
But we had thermometers that could measure globally (globally!!) to a fraction of a degree what the temperature was.
The Victorians were very big on measuring the world they'd just conquered and could produce extremely accurate equipment to do so (Everest's measurements in India were accurate to within a yard over several hundred miles).
Mrs C, clearly we need a PB-sponsored investigative committee on lingerie management. A short period of deliberation, say, 8-12 months, should do the trick.
I have been investigating it for years Mr Dancer. The best bras are M&S. The best knickers are from Sainsburys. Who would have thought it?
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
Most of the current ice on the earths surface is in the arctic and, thanks to the Archimedes Principle, it's melting will have an effect on average global sea levels of zero**.
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
Mr logicalsong at 12.41.... The earth is not susceptible to these supposed tipping points you talk about. We have had higher temperatures in the past and higher levels of CO2 (there is no evidence to support current levels as being abnormal in historic terms) and the earth has survived quite comfortably enough. We have evolved through those periods and are here to prove it. These tipping points are a scientific construct. Bogus. We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. Understand that? We are currently in a relatively warm period of an ice age.
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
"(no dentist will tell you this)"
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
Absolutely dreadful! Why on earth would it be healthy to have a mouth (which has glands etc. and needs to maintain a balanced PH and ecosystem) full of abrasive chemicals?
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
@Beverley_C I meant to ask - doesn't leaving a rough wire end just poke through faster?
Being a bit of a figurehead/prow of the ship physique - wires are essential to avoid a uni-chest.
I have not tried it yet. The tip came from Anne. All I can say is that the outer end is the one to clip as it just stops whereas the inner end is turned over to prevent jabbing.
I do not have the figurehead problem. It sometimes feels like if I had two pimples on my back I would not know if I am coming or going.....
Absolutely dreadful! Why on earth would it be healthy to have a mouth (which has glands etc. and needs to maintain a balanced PH and ecosystem) full of abrasive chemicals?
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
You really are an absolute nutcase.
I do hope you have no children who get exposed to your views.
It's impossible to know where to start with the insane depth of your delusional fantasies. Put simply, you are wrong, very, very wrong.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
Lingerie management is straightforward and the results are beyond dispute and easily demonstrated :
Anyway the humour to me, and point of mentioning the books in the first place, was what went on in the Fenland College of Art and Technology - Meat One, Senior Secs, plus the antics in the staff room and the gulf between the staff's aspirations and the reality. Nearly ten years ago I did a spell teaching in FE and until you have tried teaching Mathematics to a bunch of 17 year olds doing a Fine Arts course (as an alternative to the dole) you cannot appreciate how accurate Sharp's books are.
My best friend was a science teacher at the time. She said it could have been her school (in Oldham, oddly enough).
The staff meetings were superb and Dr Board & Wilt were the stars.
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
Most of the current ice on the earths surface is in the arctic and, thanks to the Archimedes Principle, it's melting will have an effect on average global sea levels of zero**.
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
There are always sceptics, some thought tobacco was not harmful and these tended to be funded by the cigarette companies. The trouble is that in the case of AGW there are tipping points where after a certain amount of warming a positive feedback effect starts to take place. For example if permafrost starts melting methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, is given off. OK the models aren't perfect so nobody can be sure where these tipping points will occur. But if/when the tipping point is reached the effects will be dramatic. What is depressing is the way that the debate on climate change has become politicised. Right wingers, who may be right on many things, by default seem to be climate sceptics. See this piece in The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4625947.ece
Hopefully governments, companies and individuals will take actions which will avert the worst scenarios - and incidentally save them money over the longer term. Build the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and benefit from free, dependable power http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33053003 Switch to LED lightbulbs and save 80%+ off your lighting bill.
Positive and negative feedbacks happen all the time. Indeed the whole AGW argument is based on a disagreement about the modelling of the various feedbacks. The tipping point idea is simply a scare story for which there is no scientific evidence.
Looking through his timeline, sadly not... Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 Instead of all this posturing about bombing Syria and causing more chaos in the Muslim world UK should neutron bomb Tel Aviv. #DontBombSyria 2 retweets 0 likes Reply Retweet 2 Like More Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 #DontBombSyria bomb Israel instead.
His profile says he's a BBC camera man. Wonder if the beeb are happy to associate with his views?
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
"(no dentist will tell you this)"
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
Absolutely dreadful! Why on earth would it be healthy to have a mouth (which has glands etc. and needs to maintain a balanced PH and ecosystem) full of abrasive chemicals?
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
NURSE !
Look if it was OK for General Jack D Ripper to oppose flouridation then its OK for me We must preserve our precious bodily fluids.
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
To fix your teeth you need to look after them, sure, but they are bone like any other, they need to be nourished from the inside and they will regrow (no dentist will tell you this). You need to cut right down on sugar (not just because of acid erosion but because it undermines bone strength), and eat lots of cultured dairy (live yoghurt). Raw milk would work just as well, but is expensive. We can't properly assimilate calcium from pasteurised milk. Culturing reverses the damage done to the product when it's pasteurised. I speak from experience.
"(no dentist will tell you this)"
I wonder why that is?
My dentist also repeatedly tells me not to rinse my mouth after brushing. The reason she gives (and I've no idea if this is true or not), is that most toothpaste contains chemicals that help protect the teeth and gums, and over-rigorous rinsing can remove them. If you're brushing before going to bed, by rinsing you miss many hours when those chemicals could be helping.
I always ignore the advice, as I find most toothpaste makes my mouth incredibly dry.
From memory, she says use mouthwash before brushing. Which again, has always struck me as a little odd.
Absolutely dreadful! Why on earth would it be healthy to have a mouth (which has glands etc. and needs to maintain a balanced PH and ecosystem) full of abrasive chemicals?
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
Most of the chemicals that go to make up our bodies and which we rely upon to survive are poisonous in large enough concentrations. It is a matter of scale and circumstances. The idea that fluoride in the sorts of concentrations you find it in dental products is a poison is just garbage
Looking through his timeline, sadly not... Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 Instead of all this posturing about bombing Syria and causing more chaos in the Muslim world UK should neutron bomb Tel Aviv. #DontBombSyria 2 retweets 0 likes Reply Retweet 2 Like More Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 #DontBombSyria bomb Israel instead.
His profile says he's a BBC camera man. Wonder if the beeb are happy to associate with his views?
Probably.
I look forward to Nick Palmer describing his comments as 'a breath of fresh air', or 'they add a new outlook to the debate'.
I have adopted a routine: floss, mouthwash, brush,don't rinse.. Since starting that 3 years ago, my teeth appear to much healthier. As I am an OAP, I like to keep whatever faculties I have left :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't have a good oral hygiene routine.
I'm 32, never had a filling, always brushed twice a day, use mouthwash intermittently, but was getting some acid erosion under the lower front teeth.
I did some research, after which I cut way back on grains. Grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or sour levened are fine, because this breaks down the phytic acid that is contained within the hull of the grain. Phytic acid links with calcium in your body, taking calcium that would otherwise be used for bone building. All bread baked fast with modern brewer's yeast will have this phytic acid. I also cut way back on sugar (for general health reasons). I also now only have milk cultured (having been made into yoghurt). This re-balances the milk after the pasteurisation process, which I believe makes the successful assimilation of calcium from milk difficult. I like yoghurt, but I would like to have the option of raw milk, but this may not be purchased in Scotland except via mail order from England, which is £15 for 6 pints - not really something I want to do financially on a constant basis.
I did all this, and I'm delighted to say it has solved the problem, effectively 'rebuilding' that acid eroded area.
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
Most of the current ice on the earths surface is in the arctic and, thanks to the Archimedes Principle, it's melting will have an effect on average global sea levels of zero**.
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
More ice will weigh down on the earth's crust and actually cause a relative rise in sea levels. Sea levels fell at the start of this current inter glacial perod because the earth crust rose as the ice receeded.
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
Most of the current ice on the earths surface is in the arctic and, thanks to the Archimedes Principle, it's melting will have an effect on average global sea levels of zero**.
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
Surely antarctica has far more ice?
Yes it does and would be more problematic because much of it is on land. Fortunately Antarctic ice is increasing in both thickness and extent.
I'm not getting involved in discussing AGW, but ...
"This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed."
Don't forget the melt-down at the end of the last proper ice age - sea levels c.12,000 BC were roughly 300 feet (100 metres) LOWER than they are today. Must have been all those coal-fires burnt by stone-age humans
Most of the current ice on the earths surface is in the arctic and, thanks to the Archimedes Principle, it's melting will have an effect on average global sea levels of zero**.
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
Surely antarctica has far more ice?
My mistake, I misremembered, Arctic has twice the volume of sea ice but obviously including the rest of the Antarctic's ice then the southern volume is much greater. Apologies.
I'm not getting involved in discussing AGW, but ...
"This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed."
Most of the chemicals that go to make up our bodies and which we rely upon to survive are poisonous in large enough concentrations. It is a matter of scale and circumstances. The idea that fluoride in the sorts of concentrations you find it in dental products is a poison is just garbage
There is a subtlety between what will make you drop dead on the spot, and what will be injurious to health if practised on a long term basis, that you are clearly missing. I'm not saying that fluoride in toothpaste will make people keel over, I am saying that although 'safe' in small doses, building up a large load of a toxic chemical that your body has to excrete or store is not a good idea.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
It is the premise that kills us (sceptics).
Please explain, in terms that a non-scientific person such as myself can understand, how in 1850 they could measure the temperature to such an exact degree (!) before we had televisions, petrol-fuelled cars, telephones, iPADs, Arsenal Football Club, etc, etc...
But we had thermometers that could measure globally (globally!!) to a fraction of a degree what the temperature was.
The Victorians were very big on measuring the world they'd just conquered and could produce extremely accurate equipment to do so (Everest's measurements in India were accurate to within a yard over several hundred miles).
Fahrenheit made his first thermometer before 1724.
"I am not a scientific expert."
I suggest you learn some basic physics and some hsitory . Then you will not have to apologise first before writing rubbish :-)
I have adopted a routine: floss, mouthwash, brush,don't rinse.. Since starting that 3 years ago, my teeth appear to much healthier. As I am an OAP, I like to keep whatever faculties I have left :-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't have a good oral hygiene routine.
I'm 32, never had a filling, always brushed twice a day, use mouthwash intermittently, but was getting some acid erosion under the lower front teeth.
I did some research, after which I cut way back on grains. Grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or sour levened are fine, because this breaks down the phytic acid that is contained within the hull of the grain. Phytic acid links with calcium in your body, taking calcium that would otherwise be used for bone building. All bread baked fast with modern brewer's yeast will have this phytic acid. I also cut way back on sugar (for general health reasons). I also now only have milk cultured (having been made into yoghurt). This re-balances the milk after the pasteurisation process, which I believe makes the successful assimilation of calcium from milk difficult. I like yoghurt, but I would like to have the option of raw milk, but this may not be purchased in Scotland except via mail order from England, which is £15 for 6 pints - not really something I want to do financially on a constant basis.
I did all this, and I'm delighted to say it has solved the problem, effectively 'rebuilding' that acid eroded area.
Glad your teeth are fine, but your biochemistry sounds dodgy. Where are you getting yr information from?
Looking through his timeline, sadly not... Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 Instead of all this posturing about bombing Syria and causing more chaos in the Muslim world UK should neutron bomb Tel Aviv. #DontBombSyria 2 retweets 0 likes Reply Retweet 2 Like More Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28 #DontBombSyria bomb Israel instead.
His profile says he's a BBC camera man. Wonder if the beeb are happy to associate with his views?
Probably.
I look forward to Nick Palmer describing his comments as 'a breath of fresh air', or 'they add a new outlook to the debate'.
And the paperless office, and us having so much free time we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves - so we built recreation centres.
The Kent Courier did a book for the Millennium containing reprints of articles over the previous century. One of the best was an article from the 1930s with predictions of what life would be like at the end of the 20th century. The great thing about it is how it was both right in some ways, and spectacularly wrong in others. For example:
- "The servants problem is not going to improve" [well they were right about that!], but the proposed solution was the rich would live together in communal homes, taking their meals in communal dining rooms.
- "Traffic is going to get worse and worse" [right again], but the proposed solution was that by 2000 we'd all be flying around in 1930s-style biplanes launched from multi-storey towers.
Most of the chemicals that go to make up our bodies and which we rely upon to survive are poisonous in large enough concentrations. It is a matter of scale and circumstances. The idea that fluoride in the sorts of concentrations you find it in dental products is a poison is just garbage
There is a subtlety between what will make you drop dead on the spot, and what will be injurious to health if practised on a long term basis, that you are clearly missing. I'm not saying that fluoride in toothpaste will make people keel over, I am saying that although 'safe' in small doses, building up a large load of a toxic chemical that your body has to excrete or store is not a good idea.
Toothpaste has around 1500 ppm of flouride. Which means it has a lower concentration than wine, tea and raisins. Of course these things also contain acids are should not be left in contact with your teeth for extended periods, whereas toothpaste is free from such negatives.
The sheer muppetry of your posts on this are genuinely beyond belief.
It's amazing how many amateur scientific experts on climate change pb has. Personally, I'd trust them more on practical lingerie management. I prefer to rely on the scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming for policy-making judgements.
I am not a scientific expert.
Being naturally curious, however, I do wonder at the accuracy of temperature measuring instruments in 1850 which you lot seem to be taking as the optimum temperature these past few millennia.
I'm not a scientific expert either. But I expect that scientists do their best with such information as they have, same as any of us do with imperfect information.
The most astonishing aspect to me is not that there is scepticism about the science - that's healthy - it's that there is a complete unwillingness among so many to accept that there might be anything in it whatsoever.
My usual Bayesian rules of thumb tell me that (a) there is something in it; (b) not as much as some claim; (c) the models are not very good; (d) we ought to do a bit about it now; (e) we'll probably be able to manage whatever happens, not least because of human ingenuity.
I agree with (a), (c) and (d). Because of (c), I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions about whether the models are optimistic or pessimistic. (e) seems to be wishful thinking that may or may not be true.
My prior for (e) would be Malthus.
20/1 Bickley?
Fair enough quote, was hoping for 33/1! Will wait until he wins ( ) and see what the bookies say...
Oh if he wins that price is not available!
Naturally - but I reckon a bookie might go out at 16s then...
I was thinking 25% chance UKIP win Oldham, 25% chance Carswell quits by time Farage does, and if Bickers is the only Kipper in the commons then he would be about 6/4?
Comments
ha
haha
hahahahahahahahaha
Please explain, in terms that a non-scientific person such as myself can understand, how in 1850 they could measure the temperature to such an exact degree (!) before we had televisions, petrol-fuelled cars, telephones, iPADs, Arsenal Football Club, etc, etc...
But we had thermometers that could measure globally (globally!!) to a fraction of a degree what the temperature was.
We know from their emails that they will do everything they can to prevent any challenge to their opinions which tends to make sensible people doubt their claims.
Quite a tale, too:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/a-very-rare-book
It all falls apart when you start having to pay people a salary.
Thanks for that... and of course Arctic ice should have totally disappeared twice over by now.
Arctic ice is affected as much by sea currentts as much as anything and the resultant changes in sea temps.
The vast vast vast amount of CO2 produced world wide is done perfectly naturally. The amount produced mechanically by man is miniscule.
China has earned the right to put out CO2 by its 30 years of single child policy.
The rest of the world? Not so much. Special black mark goes to the Catholic Church for its attitude to contraception.
Want to save the planet? Stop having so many kids. Anybody with 3 or more children worried about the planet should eat one of them for Christmas, instead of a turkey. That includes you, Prime Minister.
It's utter tripe from Mr Palmer.
Curries would be tastier if Britain left EU and let in Asian chefs, claim Tory MPs
Quitting the EU could improve the chicken tikka masala served in Britain’s Indian restaurants, MPs claimed today.
Paul Scully, Tory MP for Sutton and Cheam, said that “Brexit” — a British exit from the European Union — would return control to Britain of its borders and could allow more chefs from Asia to come to this country.
http://bit.ly/1PDBe3h
I thought Chicken Tikka Masala was invented in Glasgow.
Maybe. You can see what would happen if we stopped immigration wholesale though.
Gargantuan skill shortages, spiralling wages, soaring prices, higher interest rates and an economy soon grinding to a halt/
Then I moved away from home and I ate nearly exclusively English food for over 15 years.
Now when I have a lot of hot and spicy stuff than I'm used to, the result is an internal blitzkrieg, with my lower intestine playing the part of Poland.
Tries to meet Labour conference motion tests https://t.co/j1Jy63kuEQ
http://www.amazon.co.uk/5000-Days-Planet-Edward-Goldsmith/dp/0600571564
Published in 1990, nine thousand days ago. So, are we saved or are we doomed?
It the apocalyptic nature of the predictions, followed by "ho hum, not quite right last time", followed by "Doomed!!" that's created the scepticism. Too much wolf-crying (and it's worth remembering that in that story, there was a wolf in the end).
The man acted appallingly.
All satellite atmospheric measurements show no global warming.
That's deep fried Chicken Tikka Masala
See the rainforests as an example.. or the English wheatfields.. Monoculture at its worst.
And people complain about a shortage of bees!
(I keep bees so the impact of man on the insect population - which feeds birds etc- is of great interest..)
And I'm not even an activist on the issue...
Through a mixture of higher wages, higher investment and a rise in the participation rate (in the late 1980s). Dreadful times
The trouble is that in the case of AGW there are tipping points where after a certain amount of warming a positive feedback effect starts to take place. For example if permafrost starts melting methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, is given off. OK the models aren't perfect so nobody can be sure where these tipping points will occur. But if/when the tipping point is reached the effects will be dramatic.
What is depressing is the way that the debate on climate change has become politicised. Right wingers, who may be right on many things, by default seem to be climate sceptics.
See this piece in The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4625947.ece
Hopefully governments, companies and individuals will take actions which will avert the worst scenarios - and incidentally save them money over the longer term. Build the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and benefit from free, dependable power http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33053003
Switch to LED lightbulbs and save 80%+ off your lighting bill.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/bill-gates-zuckerberg-tech-leaders-launch-fund-for-clean-energy-breakthroughs/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61
That's deep fried Chicken Tikka Mars barla
More energy efficiency saves money and (if you believe in it) helps avert global warming. Some renewables, especially geothermal, are a very good idea.
http://order-order.com/2015/05/27/big-feartie-which-snp-mp-gassed-the-chamber/
Mars Bar Humbug!
Even in the Medieval period there were variations.
I have again been spending a lot of time in the fourteenth century these past few months trying to understand what went on and why. Anyway, starting around around about 1210 maybe 1215 the weather (climate?) in England started to change summers became a wetter and the winters warmer. As a result there was no famine in England from 1220. The population grew very rapidly in that time. New settlements were created and a lot of new farms were opened on land that had never been farmed before.
Then in 1315 it all changed, or rather the climate changed and apparently quite suddenly. 1315 saw the first mass harvest failure and the first famine for nearly a hundred years. What we would now call extreme whether events became the norm and England was wracked with famine and food shortages in a scale that had not been seen since the eleventh century.
Now, what man made effects were going on to cause those climate changes? If someone can give me an answer to that I might start to take this AGW stuff seriously.
As to the Scientific Consensus, Pah! I am amazed that someone as well educated and seemingly sensible as Mr. Meeks, gent of this parish, should even consider such a thing. two points:
1. The scientific consensus is no more than the consensus of the wise men, time after time across history such consensus views have been proven to be false, including some in the field of astronomy very recently.
2. Anyone who thinks that scientists always work in search of the truth has never come across the process for bidding for funds and research grants.
Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
https://xkcd.com/1321
https://xkcd.com/1379
This 'protection' would surely not last beyond the first meal you ate, so what good would it do as opposed to just having a clean mouth?
Quite apart from the fact that fluoride, whilst widely regarded as helping tooth decay when topically applied, is a poison (hence you only give a child a pea sized amount), so keeping all that in your mouth will result in your mouth producing more saliva to get rid of it, and you basically swallowing a load of poison every day (three times a day if you follow notme's bonkers dentist).
** it may cause slight increases in the tidal range but tiny.
The earth is not susceptible to these supposed tipping points you talk about. We have had higher temperatures in the past and higher levels of CO2 (there is no evidence to support current levels as being abnormal in historic terms) and the earth has survived quite comfortably enough. We have evolved through those periods and are here to prove it. These tipping points are a scientific construct. Bogus.
We are in an interglacial period of an ice age. Understand that? We are currently in a relatively warm period of an ice age.
I do not have the figurehead problem. It sometimes feels like if I had two pimples on my back I would not know if I am coming or going.....
I do hope you have no children who get exposed to your views.
It's impossible to know where to start with the insane depth of your delusional fantasies. Put simply, you are wrong, very, very wrong.
'Let's hope a few more end up like Mike Gapes'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3340817/Let-s-hope-end-like-Mike-Gapes-Corbyn-supporters-celebrate-Labour-MP-backs-bombing-Syria-rushed-hospital-chest-pains.html#ixzz3t4cizy8l
Sorry - the webcam just burnt out....
The staff meetings were superb and Dr Board & Wilt were the stars.
https://twitter.com/DarrenGrintz/status/671662549524434944?lang=en
I liked
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz 59m59 minutes ago
Real meaning of Christmas was lost long ago. Now all it does it alienate Muslims and other minorities.
#BanChristmas #christmascountdown
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28
Instead of all this posturing about bombing Syria and causing more chaos in the Muslim world UK should neutron bomb Tel Aviv.
#DontBombSyria
2 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet 2
Like
More
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Nov 28
#DontBombSyria bomb Israel instead.
His profile says he's a BBC camera man. Wonder if the beeb are happy to associate with his views?
The Holocene extinction is real, irreversible in the short term, and may or not take humanity with it.
Whether there is anything that people can do about either is questionable, but in any case we can be fairly sure that they won't.
We must preserve our precious bodily fluids.
I look forward to Nick Palmer describing his comments as 'a breath of fresh air', or 'they add a new outlook to the debate'.
I'm 32, never had a filling, always brushed twice a day, use mouthwash intermittently, but was getting some acid erosion under the lower front teeth.
I did some research, after which I cut way back on grains. Grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or sour levened are fine, because this breaks down the phytic acid that is contained within the hull of the grain. Phytic acid links with calcium in your body, taking calcium that would otherwise be used for bone building. All bread baked fast with modern brewer's yeast will have this phytic acid. I also cut way back on sugar (for general health reasons). I also now only have milk cultured (having been made into yoghurt). This re-balances the milk after the pasteurisation process, which I believe makes the successful assimilation of calcium from milk difficult. I like yoghurt, but I would like to have the option of raw milk, but this may not be purchased in Scotland except via mail order from England, which is £15 for 6 pints - not really something I want to do financially on a constant basis.
I did all this, and I'm delighted to say it has solved the problem, effectively 'rebuilding' that acid eroded area.
"This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed."
"I am not a scientific expert."
I suggest you learn some basic physics and some hsitory . Then you will not have to apologise first before writing rubbish :-)
(Yes: I have a degree in Physics)
Vile.
- "The servants problem is not going to improve" [well they were right about that!], but the proposed solution was the rich would live together in communal homes, taking their meals in communal dining rooms.
- "Traffic is going to get worse and worse" [right again], but the proposed solution was that by 2000 we'd all be flying around in 1930s-style biplanes launched from multi-storey towers.
The sheer muppetry of your posts on this are genuinely beyond belief.