Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gp_

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wonder whether this is a political move. The BoE knows they have to raise rates, but there will be public and political opposition to risking a house price crash. This way: BoE can raise rates without politicians trying to stop it, and, If there is a crash, politicians blame the BoE for telling them there would not be a crash.
  2. Its quite interesting I have ended up arguing with two people in this thread, who have very different views on very different topics, but neither is willing to provide evidence - just assertions that what they believe is true and anyone who questions their views is an idiot.
  3. You are bundling different things together. Yes, the science of greenhouse gases is well understood. Yes, there is good evidence of anthropogenic climate change. I do not disagree with any of that and its entirely irrelevant to my point. That does not prove that the predictive models are correct. The do not have a particularly good track record so far (e.g. models from the 80s predicted a variety of outcomes for the 2000s, ranging from freezing temperatures in Britain to so much warming it would never snow in winter). You are avoiding questions specific, and resorting to smear and ad hominem attacks. The very fact that we have many different models, rather than a single proven model, shows that the science is incomplete. What existential threat? We know human beings have survived (and flourished in) warm periods at least regionally, possibly globally, in historical times. Not all, or even most, models show the results would be an existential threat. Countries like Russia would benefit hugely. China and other East Asian countries would benefit too. Please define climate change denier. I asked you for measurements that confirm your claims, that is all. You are clearly ideologically committed to climate change being an "existential threat" so anyone who asks for evidence of that is an "idiot". Its very much "because I say so". Who is in a cult? If your only response to requests for evidence is to say asking for evidence or answers to question is "ridiculous". The fact is you do not know the answers yourself to the specifics about the models and the available data. You are just assuming the a particular view is true
  4. No. Atheists are less rational. Most Chinese people are atheists and believe in astrology etc. The Soviet Union were atheists, as is North Korea, as were the Khmer Rouge, Mussolini, and Mao. All rational? That sort of silly comment shows you have no idea what people actually believe or why, just a mass of prejudice. The government has taken control of the Orthodox Church, would be more accurate. Dictatorships have a way of doing that - read up on what Hitler did to German protestant churches, or China's ban on the Catholic Church etc. Russia's reasons for invading are entirely rational (they may not be right, or justified, but they were rational). People were predicting a new cold war in the 1990s, Russia threatened to invade Ukraine in 2008, if they took any steps towards joining NATO or the EU. Russia actually invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed a lot of Ukrainian territory. Given all that, pretending that the invasion in 2022 was some kind of black swan event is an excuse for not admitting the incompetence of western foreign policy.
  5. Those are global averages, right? How do you deal estimate regional variations? What about the evidence that much of Europe was warmer than it is now for much of that time? https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-coming-and-going-of-glaciers-a-new-alpine-melt-theory-a-357366.html On top of that, proving the earth has warmed does not prove predictive models of future change are accurate. How many variables does a typical climate change model have? How much data do you have to backtest it on? If you adjust models to fit the data are you not over-fitting?
  6. Or maybe he thought the best thing to do with a racist fruitcake harassing him was to ignore her. There is one indication he is a foreigner, he did not react the way I would if she tried that on me - I would tell her to ****** off or I would call the cops. He may just be a more peaceful type than me. Of course, even if foreign he could be here legally - he could be a tourist, or working here, or studying here. You are claiming a massive conspiracy exists, but have zero evidence.
  7. Exactly the point I was trying to make. What is their path to citizen ship? It is a pretty long one, right? They would also have to meet the criteria I mentioned in financial terms. I am not denying a lot are economic migrants, or partly motivated by economics. What I am denying is that its worth coming here for welfare.
  8. That is true. There is a joke I heard in Sri Lanka. A man emigrates to England and his family say he has a hundred people under him at work. He mows the lawn in a cemetery. One of the things I was thinking of was a conversation with a brother of an illegal immigrant. He paid a lot to get here, ended up low paid in a petrol station, got caught and deported.
  9. You people? Who are "you people"? Evidence of temperatures over the last 10,000 years in England? Can you tell me what the peak temperature in England was between the 10th and 13th centuries? Or between 200BC and 400AD? The overall European climate was warmer than it was in 1911. We only have proper records going back a very short way. Your problem is that you think of climate change as something you believe in or do not as a political cause, and therefore you do not differentiate between what is well proven and what is probable, and what is speculation. You are are just taking what experts say as true: that is an argument from authority, not science. "You are with us or against us" is a political stance, not a scientific one.
  10. They earn less. What makes you think it is feasible? They usually get sent back before they can earn back what they paid. They have false expectations of what they can earn. No, its not. debatable Not by anyone sane. This is what happens when you get your news from Youtube, And all it proves is there were people outside hotels smoking. One guy was not even in a hotel, he was sitting in a public place and there was no reason to even think he was claiming asylum. No one is debating that some people who claim asylum are housed in hotels short term. However far more get housed in horrible housing. You really think that they could be getting more money than the rules say they do without leaving any evidence of things like payments made, documentation, etc? So when people are openly racist and you say so, that is "playing the race card"? You really have to want to believe this stuff to do so on a complete lack of evidence.
  11. I agree, but it shows that her fiance being here did not help her get in. She was trying to come here separately and illegally, and had to pay a huge amount to do it. Its not economically viable to do that for the benefits.
  12. The confirmed peak was 37.6 which was only 3.6 degrees lower, and there were higher measurements that were discarded as unreliable. If you look at the metoffice records (on their website) there are many recordings over 40. It went on for two and a half months so the average temperature over the summer was far higher and the impact on things like agriculture was far worse. Its hard to find good sources. At least hundreds of direct deaths of children alone.
  13. I keep telling you: to work. They might lose revenue, but they also reduce costs. If they can send most of the cleaners, provide only the cheapest food instead of the menu normal customers expect in the restaurant, block book rooms for long periods to avoid empty rooms etc. they can be more profitable at a low rate. So, if you go around the country you can find some people in hotels. Exactly what I said. Your evidence that 1) this is typical accommodation and 2) it is run to its usual standards? I can also find people on Youtube who will say covid is a hoax. Your definition of "nice lady" differs from mine which does not include people who support a racist political party (the English Democrats), or going up to a stranger and asking them "is it too hot for you in our country" - no evidence at all the guy is an asylum seeker - for all she knows he could have been born here.
  • 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.