Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kzb

  1. 5 hours ago, smash said:

    LoLs into the stratosphere now for the guy who is always right and is qualified to be a climate scientist as well as licensed to tell others to engage critical faculties (1)

    The Fens, and Somerset Levels have been drained, its a map depicting reclaimed land you idiot. Sand dunes around a castle? Where does the sand for any sand dune come from? Duurrrr it's stuff that created by the sea depositing it there. (2)

    You can't even interpret a map of your own country without involving your bias prejudice.

    What's up had a hard day in the kitchen, I should image theres a lot of burgers to flip on Fridays....(3)

    (1) This was all about critical facilities.  Sea level is a complicated subject.  You only hear about sea level rising, you don't hear about the Pacific islands increasing in area, or former British ports now left high and dry.

    (2) Some places get flooded, others get left high and dry.

    (3)  You can't get research money for finding no climate emergency.  What else can you do with a PhD ?  OK you could spend another £6k on becoming an HGV driver I suppose.




  2. 6 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    Wasn't the UK crushed under a giant ice sheet about 20000 years ago ? I thought it was rising, so it could be 4m higher now than it was 2000 years ago.

    Yes I believe the NW is rising and the SE sinking.

    The point was to illustrate that seal level as a concept is more complex than people think.

  3. The seal level was higher than now in the Roman warm period.  The light green areas were underwater back then.  Notice the Thames must've been wider:

    comment image

    Harlech castle was coastal when it was built, but since then:

    Harlech Castle crowns a sheer rocky crag overlooking the dunes far below – waiting in vain for the tide to turn and the distant sea to lap at its feet once again.



  4. 1 minute ago, winkie said:

    Yep, many more driving less, I understand car insurance premiums have plummeted, the risk is less because driving less, at lower speed limits, better fuel conservation....fewer accidents.;)


    Car insurance will increase for most in the new year.  That is because they have stopped "price walking" for the customers who do not switch.  So the cheaper deals, for those of us who do switch, will disappear.

  5. 17 hours ago, winkie said:

    Money isn't everything, in the autumn of life time can be more valuable......so important to train up the next generation to replace the previous generation..... investment into the future.

    Errr....50 is the new 30 you know.  50 is not the autumn of your life any more.

    I have male relatives who have started afresh after that age, babies, new wives, mortgages, the lot....

  6. 2 hours ago, Ignorantbliss said:


    I suspect a career change to HGV driver has become a lot less attractive for many in the UK, who honestly believes they will not keep extending the scheme....

    It's conceivable we are seeing the result of an orchestrated campaign to keep a form of FoM going, with a view to rejoining.

    I think it is very poor when we have half a million NEETs in this country.

  7. 34 minutes ago, smash said:

    OK, I want to address this idea that UK national action on climate change is futile due to China and other developed or developing nations emissions.

    My answer is "so what?". Why should we let the Chinese and/or others dictate how the UK should act? To concede to inaction on this basis is to  eviscerate our own sovereign volition. Why accept such a defeat? I don't get it.

    For heavens sake.

  8. 20 minutes ago, smash said:

    Fella, you are about as subtle and non-transparent as the boredom expressed on the face of someone who flips burgers for a living.

    Its just a fact of (your) life.

    Maybe but I always turn out to be right.  Actually I'm very transparent I don't know why you would say non-transparent.

  9. 4 hours ago, smash said:

    Sorry, you don't think that engaging with other people in the way you are doing here; detracting from action on climate change as a social activism is absurd?

    And the springboard for this social activism is via a valuing of your own death, not absurd? Beyond Camus levels of absurdity to my mind.


    I am not questioning that CO2 causes climate warming.  What I am questioning is our absurd reaction to it here in the UK.

    What is really absurd is the level of hysteria and also hubris.  Hysteria in the belief that it is an immediate life threatening emergency.  Hubris in thinking the current UK population can do anything about it.

    There is also a massive disconnect on this forum (and elsewhere) between concern on standards of living and the cost of accelerated carbon reductions in advance of the rest of the world.

    We still have no response from PB on his support for that Guardian article which basically said the tax on fossil fuels should be doubled.  Do you?

    What is your plan to finance your transition to carbon zero?

  10. 46 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    A Johnson hater would probably want to go for something like December 2010. That was very cold. I remember arriving at work and it was -13 degrees C on the car thermometer at about 10 in the morning.


    Funnily enough when I mention it to most people they can't remember it.

    1983 was a cold winter.  I have recollection Cheshire got down to minus 23 C.

    December 2010/January 2011 is the coldest in recent memory I would think.  Minus 20 just south of Manchester.  Deep snow in many places, and it persisted for weeks.

    Let us not forget that January 2021 was the coldest January since.

  11. 2 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    Why are we paying into ITER if we are doing it ourselves?

    I have also got to ask, if wind and solar are going to be so ridiculously cheap (1.1-3 US cents/kWh has been claimed), why are we bothering with fusion power plants?  The amount of technology involved, plus the use of tritium as fuel, means it will never be cheap.

  12. 2 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

    You make a very good point, the challenge of climate chance will be in the fields of social, political and behavioural science.

    Climate science isn't about social, political and behavioural science.

    Climate sciences are hard sciences, the other ones are sciences of its consequences.

  13. 6 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    I don't have a problem with people wanting to propagate dogma/science and wanting decisions to be made on blind faith rather than on evaluation, as few people seem to have the ability to evaluate in the first place.

    What I do have a problem with is people not being given the choice, and people who believe that their wish to have people believe their dogma/science on blind faith is somehow a better process than anyone else's.



    Look at the whole blog not just this one posting.

    This is by a professor who knows far more about cosmology than anyone on this forum.  Should he be censored?  Why is he subjected to so much bullying and nastiness from his peers? 

    Bear in mind the subject is of absolutely zero practical consequence to anyone on Earth.  Dark matter or modified gravity choice is completely irrelevant to our everyday lives.  Yet he and the other sceptics get vilified.

    Just imagine what happens when the subject matter has trillions of dollars of consequences.






  14. 3 hours ago, smash said:

    I think some on here are focusing too much on the natural sciences, chemistry, physics etc. It's very important to acknowledge that there is also a huge amount of research and publications produced by social science and political science departments.

    I'm not a behaviourist by any means but I think I can guess what the reaction to this will be from certain people on this thread.

    It's because "climate science" is very much based on the physical sciences.  The title of this thread is climate change, which in turn is based on climate sciences.

    A lot of people don't like that, so they've converted it into a social and political science.


  15. 46 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    In fact a guy I know who I was talking to the other day was saying how take up rates on courses traditionally associated with O&G are dropping by quite a lot. It's seen by younger people as not the "happening" area to get into. I have no idea whether this is true or not because I don't have direct experience, but it sounds plausible.

    I guess it is a moribund industry.  Although I will say, there's lots of uses for oil besides burning it.

  16. 2 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

    That's a good post and pretty much said what I was going to write :)

    I think most scientists would prefer to describe themselves as X working in climate science rather than as a climate scientist.

    The reason for that is that people tend to want to gravitate to being associated with harder scientific disciplines if they can.

    I think climate science as a formal separate discipline will take longer to establish. It's also probably true that any course at the undergraduate level that would cover the variety of disciplines that are involved in climate science at undergraduate level probably wouldn't be comprehensive enough to be of benefit in say PhD research. For example, if I wanted someone to do climate modelling research I would be much more interested in getting a good mathematician than someone who had a less in depth but broader background in all the current areas of climate research that might be studied as part of some sort of climate science degree.


    Personally, I wonder what kind of student will be attracted to Climate Science as a degree subject.  There is a danger that people who like gluing themselves to roads will be given places, and they will be in for a shock when they are faced with the hard physics and maths.  That is, if they actually teach that side of it, which is another thing I am wondering.

  17. 1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

    You heard it here folks; can't trust experts, can't become an expert, no one "knows" anything and we may all well be shadows on a cave wall. 

    But first we need to define what IS a CAVE? Do WALLS exist? and remember, no one can agree on shadows at all. :D 

    The main thing is to Remain Apathetic. Accept life as it is. Buy stuff. Debt is fine. Work until you die. Don't worry about consequences. Consumption is very important and has no negative consequences for anyone and even if it does that's fine. Be productive for your employer. Everything will be ok because finite systems can survive exploitation indefinitely. 



    Instead of posting arguments about stuff no-one on here has actually said, can you respond to my previous questions?

    I was wondering what your carbon-zero plan is for the properties you rent out.

    Are you going to upgrade the insulation to the latest standards?

    Are you installing heat pumps and taking out gas appliances?

    How are you going to finance this?  Do you expect government grants, are you going to have to borrow money, or are you selling up instead?

  18. 1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

    You could say the same about physicists working in different areas of physics.

    Not sure really.  I guess there likely are a few people doing research and publishing in areas usually included in "physics" who do not have a physics-related qualification.  But is this the general picture or just a few exceptions?

  19. 1 hour ago, smash said:

    Are you suggesting that science, completely separate and distinct, from values should be the ethical?

    Also, please ffs stop putting quote marks around climate science. It just looks like you wish to sow doubt in the most crude and infantile fashion.

    I think it is quite OK to put quote marks around "climate science", in context.

    It's a new area populated by people from disparate scientific backgrounds.

    A computer modeller, virtually ignorant of the underlying science could be described as a "climate scientist" if they are working on climate models.

    A physicist specialising in infra-red absorption/transmission could also be a "climate scientist".

    As could a meteorologist or someone who studies fossilised tree rings.

    Scientifically, any one of these four people would have hardly a clue what the other three are on about in conversation.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.