It’s raining again

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

It’s raining again

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

sickboy Deal or Croydon 23 Dec 19 5.37pm
Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall 17.50 an hour? I think you've consulted an '80s trade guide. The only reason sparkys & plumbers dont drive Porsche vans is they dont(yet) make 'em. Sparks wouldnt drive themselves. They would be chauffeur driven as befits their ( self imposed) position as the masters of the building trade.
Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy

Deal or Croydon 23 Dec 19 5.37pm

Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall

17.50 an hour?
I think you've consulted an '80s trade guide.
The only reason sparkys & plumbers dont drive Porsche vans is they dont(yet) make 'em.

Sparks wouldnt drive themselves.
They would be chauffeur driven as befits their ( self imposed) position as the masters of the building trade.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 23 Dec 19 5.40pm
Originally posted by cryrst Sadly I'm paye so not in that league. I have been a gas engineer for 30 years. Did the first round of ACOP then corgi now gas safe. When ppm is used as an argument I know it's all bollox. The Calirific value of gas can change the emissions from a boiler on the co2 emissions. Much like any fossil fuel. Solid and liquid have a different identity of CV but along the same. Where were these readings taken. Over what period. What time of year. It is all relevant. I havent denied climate change. What I question is our input against a cyclical change which is probably millenniums. Do you see how you maple dont budge but I am prepared to admit we may, it's the amount that I question. Just prove it without telling me you would notice 65 grains of sugar missing from a bag. That's probably the difference on the atmosphere in the last few eons. The bag being our atmosphere and the grains being the change. Also anyone like me who questions the validity of a dead planet in 10 years is immediately ostracized and put to the sword. Just read the article in my link. It is all very clear. I couldn't write it any better. And it was from the Skeptics Societ, not a group naturally prone to accepting the received wisdoms of this world.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 23 Dec 19 5.40pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Sadly I'm paye so not in that league.
I have been a gas engineer for 30 years.
Did the first round of ACOP then corgi now gas safe.
When ppm is used as an argument I know it's all bollox.
The Calirific value of gas can change the emissions from a boiler on the co2 emissions.
Much like any fossil fuel.
Solid and liquid have a different identity of CV but along the same.
Where were these readings taken.
Over what period.
What time of year.
It is all relevant.
I havent denied climate change.
What I question is our input against a cyclical change which is probably millenniums.
Do you see how you maple dont budge but I am prepared to admit we may, it's the amount that I question.
Just prove it without telling me you would notice 65 grains of sugar missing from a bag.
That's probably the difference on the atmosphere in the last few eons.
The bag being our atmosphere and the grains being the change.
Also anyone like me who questions the validity of a dead planet in 10 years is immediately ostracized and put to the sword.

Just read the article in my link. It is all very clear. I couldn't write it any better. And it was from the Skeptics Societ, not a group naturally prone to accepting the received wisdoms of this world.

Alert a moderator to this post

Casual Orpington 23 Dec 19 6.08pm
Doing a load of work at mine, and we are still living in it. . Having the back of the roof done just before Xmas, then the front , 3 new gables were to be pitched aswell at the back. Weather was so bad I got a couple of quotes for a tin hat (scaffold covering the whole roof, so the rain wouldn’t come in the house), between 9-12 grand. Was never going to pay that , so just went for it and the bit that was open to the elements was done in the only dry week in about 3 months. Soooooo lucky.
Alert a moderator to this post

Casual

Orpington 23 Dec 19 6.08pm

Doing a load of work at mine, and we are still living in it. . Having the back of the roof done just before Xmas, then the front , 3 new gables were to be pitched aswell at the back.
Weather was so bad I got a couple of quotes for a tin hat (scaffold covering the whole roof, so the rain wouldn’t come in the house), between 9-12 grand. Was never going to pay that , so just went for it and the bit that was open to the elements was done in the only dry week in about 3 months. Soooooo lucky.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 23 Dec 19 6.13pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Hmm, never heard of a glacial period taking tens of years. Still, I’m sure all the climate scientists are only guessing and the recent weather changes are simply due to Jeremy corbyn and there being too many Muslims So the effect we are seeing now probably started centuries ago for a non human reason. It clearly states it is likely we are causing it but to what level isnt provable. That also means it could be unlikely we are causing it. Written in black and white. That's exactly my point. Its warming from something that happened way back. How all of a sudden will the earth die in ten years by our hand. My major issue ,taking out the us or not is how the finance needed to change will be taxed. Why not inspire with finance as with no dough we are going backwards. Say monitor each individuals output and pay them to use less;not tax them for living. If it's that urgent why cant the governments take a hit.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 23 Dec 19 6.13pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Hmm, never heard of a glacial period taking tens of years. Still, I’m sure all the climate scientists are only guessing and the recent weather changes are simply due to Jeremy corbyn and there being too many Muslims

So the effect we are seeing now probably started centuries ago for a non human reason.
It clearly states it is likely we are causing it but to what level isnt provable.
That also means it could be unlikely we are causing it.
Written in black and white.
That's exactly my point.
Its warming from something that happened way back.
How all of a sudden will the earth die in ten years by our hand.
My major issue ,taking out the us or not is how the finance needed to change will be taxed.
Why not inspire with finance as with no dough we are going backwards.
Say monitor each individuals output and pay them to use less;not tax them for living.
If it's that urgent why cant the governments take a hit.

Alert a moderator to this post

kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 23 Dec 19 8.46pm
Originally posted by Mapletree As this was based on the difference between the earnings of climate scientists and gas engineers, it depends on how much you think a jobbing Professor gets paid too much probably, at least plumbers & sparks get their hands dirty. jeez, a spot of banter on the weather. lighten up maple. Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.
Alert a moderator to this post

kingdowieonthewall

Sussex, ex-Cronx. 23 Dec 19 8.46pm

Send a Private Message to kingdowieonthewall

Originally posted by Mapletree

As this was based on the difference between the earnings of climate scientists and gas engineers, it depends on how much you think a jobbing Professor gets paid

too much probably, at least plumbers & sparks get their hands dirty.
jeez, a spot of banter on the weather.
lighten up maple.

Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

Alert a moderator to this post

kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 23 Dec 19 8.49pm
Originally posted by Casual Doing a load of work at mine, and we are still living in it. . Having the back of the roof done just before Xmas, then the front , 3 new gables were to be pitched aswell at the back. Weather was so bad I got a couple of quotes for a tin hat (scaffold covering the whole roof, so the rain wouldn’t come in the house), between 9-12 grand. Was never going to pay that , so just went for it and the bit that was open to the elements was done in the only dry week in about 3 months. Soooooo lucky. 9 grand for a tin? Buckingham palace casual? Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.
Alert a moderator to this post

kingdowieonthewall

Sussex, ex-Cronx. 23 Dec 19 8.49pm

Originally posted by Casual

9 grand for a tin?
Buckingham palace casual?

Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

Alert a moderator to this post

Casual Orpington 23 Dec 19 8.54pm
Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall 9 grand for a tin? Buckingham palace casual? That was the firm that we use for scaffolding our rendering jobs! Nearly threw up. I want a new bathroom and a motor for 9 grand
Alert a moderator to this post

Casual

Orpington 23 Dec 19 8.54pm

Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall

9 grand for a tin?
Buckingham palace casual?

That was the firm that we use for scaffolding our rendering jobs! Nearly threw up. I want a new bathroom and a motor for 9 grand

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 23 Dec 19 9.26pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Yes. Duh. Did you read any science yet Science? What I believe is that we should pursue a policy that acknowledges the possibility that we could suffer the effects of greater warming than would naturally occur. That does not mean that I think that it is certainly a reality or that the larger polluters on the planet will take any action that is likely to be detrimental to their economies. Sadly, this has become a very political subject which your type predictably like to use to assert your perceived intellectual superiority. I suggest you put this enormous intellect to thinking about how we best adapt to our new and ever changing environment because change it will, no matter what we do.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

23 Dec 19 9.26pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Mapletree

Yes. Duh. Did you read any science yet

Science?

What I believe is that we should pursue a policy that acknowledges the possibility that we could suffer the effects of greater warming than would naturally occur.

That does not mean that I think that it is certainly a reality or that the larger polluters on the planet will take any action that is likely to be detrimental to their economies.

Sadly, this has become a very political subject which your type predictably like to use to assert your perceived intellectual superiority.
I suggest you put this enormous intellect to thinking about how we best adapt to our new and ever changing environment because change it will, no matter what we do.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 24 Dec 19 12.47pm
Originally posted by cryrst So the effect we are seeing now probably started centuries ago for a non human reason. It clearly states it is likely we are causing it but to what level isnt provable. That also means it could be unlikely we are causing it. Written in black and white. That's exactly my point. Its warming from something that happened way back. How all of a sudden will the earth die in ten years by our hand. My major issue ,taking out the us or not is how the finance needed to change will be taxed. Why not inspire with finance as with no dough we are going backwards. Say monitor each individuals output and pay them to use less;not tax them for living. If it's that urgent why cant the governments take a hit. ''All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning.'' Where does the unlikely come from then? ''Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million in the late 1950s to about 385 ppm now. Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years; over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280 ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during warm periods.''
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 24 Dec 19 12.47pm

Originally posted by cryrst

''All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning.''

Where does the unlikely come from then?

''Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million in the late 1950s to about 385 ppm now. Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years; over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280 ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during warm periods.''

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 24 Dec 19 4.21pm
Originally posted by Mapletree ''All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning.'' Where does the unlikely come from then? ''Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million in the late 1950s to about 385 ppm now. Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years; over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280 ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during warm periods.'' I said it could be unlikely. This being that the report says it is likely. That's ambiguous. It was likely that that bird was going to lose at darts. Now she has won twice. Do you see. The increase is not proved to be us. I'm not saying at all that the earths atmosphere isnt changing. I personally have my opinion of why. It may not fit with the majority but I like a challenge. Have a merry christmas maple. May you get all the gifts you wanted from Santa. Kind regards Cryrst.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 24 Dec 19 4.21pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

''All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning.''

Where does the unlikely come from then?

I said it could be unlikely.
This being that the report says it is likely.
That's ambiguous.
It was likely that that bird was going to lose at darts.
Now she has won twice.
Do you see.
The increase is not proved to be us.
I'm not saying at all that the earths atmosphere isnt changing.
I personally have my opinion of why.
It may not fit with the majority but I like a challenge.

Have a merry christmas maple.
May you get all the gifts you wanted from Santa.
Kind regards
Cryrst.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 24 Dec 19 4.36pm
Originally posted by cryrst I said it could be unlikely. This being that the report says it is likely. That's ambiguous. It was likely that that bird was going to lose at darts. Now she has won twice. Do you see. The increase is not proved to be us. I'm not saying at all that the earths atmosphere isnt changing. I personally have my opinion of why. It may not fit with the majority but I like a challenge. Have a merry christmas maple. May you get all the gifts you wanted from Santa. Kind regards Cryrst. Just to repeat It says the evidence is unambiguous. So no, there is no possibility it's unlikely that man is changing the environment. The only question is the quantum and pace. Any way you look at it we can make a difference and hopefully give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance. Also a Merry Christmas to you and go easy on the sprouts. Methane is a strong contributor to climate change you know.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 24 Dec 19 4.36pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Have a merry christmas maple.
May you get all the gifts you wanted from Santa.
Kind regards
Cryrst.

Just to repeat

It says the evidence is unambiguous. So no, there is no possibility it's unlikely that man is changing the environment. The only question is the quantum and pace. Any way you look at it we can make a difference and hopefully give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance.

Also a Merry Christmas to you and go easy on the sprouts. Methane is a strong contributor to climate change you know.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 24 Dec 19 4.42pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Just to repeat It says the evidence is unambiguous. So no, there is no possibility it's unlikely that man is changing the environment. The only question is the quantum and pace. Any way you look at it we can make a difference and hopefully give our children and grandchildren a fighting chance. Also a Merry Christmas to you and go easy on the sprouts. Methane is a strong contributor to climate change you know. I will limit my ppm into the atmosphere
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 24 Dec 19 4.42pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Just to repeat

Also a Merry Christmas to you and go easy on the sprouts. Methane is a strong contributor to climate change you know.

I will limit my ppm into the atmosphere

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

It’s raining again

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors