It’s literally the first line of the news article? To be honest they will probably generate a lot of scepticism if they start telling the masses that common localised weather phenomenon (only in mountain ranges, where are the mountain ranges around Rome and Cote de azure?) 
I am still awaiting the mini ice age that the climate experts promised back in the 80s, just saying. 

That's not what it says. There is a huge difference between the highest January temperature on record and the warmest January on record. The former is a recording of a single instance while the latter is the average of multiple instances over the month.

1 minute ago, Slarti said:

56 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

It’s literally the first line of the news article? To be honest they will probably generate a lot of scepticism if they start telling the masses that common localised weather phenomenon (only in mountain ranges, where are the mountain ranges around Rome and Cote de azure?) 
I am still awaiting the mini ice age that the climate experts promised back in the 80s, just saying. 

That's not what it says. There is a huge difference between the highest January temperature on record and the warmest January on record. The former is a recording of a single instance while the latter is the average of multiple instances over the month.

Tell that to the BBC please. 

Sure why not. I think I first heard about it on tomorrow’s world? On a timescale somewhere between the ozone layer disappearing and acid rain destroying the world. The timescale for the ice age has now been moved to between 2030-40 according to the Washington post article below. Don’t think I will bother investing in that air pump heater just yet. 

Do you not think that the actions taken, e.g. banning CFCs, had an effect on those predictions?

Tell that to the BBC please. 

Nowhere in the article you posted does it say it's the warmest January on record, it doesn't even hint at that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they said.

6 minutes ago, Slarti said:

9 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Tell that to the BBC please. 

Nowhere in the article you posted does it say it's the warmest January on record, it doesn't even hint at that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they said.

You better get to spec savers!! What does the headline say? 

You better get to spec savers!! What does the headline say? 

You never posted the headline.

4 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Sure why not. I think I first heard about it on tomorrow’s world? On a timescale somewhere between the ozone layer disappearing and acid rain destroying the world. The timescale for the ice age has now been moved to between 2030-40 according to the Washington post article below. Don’t think I will bother investing in that air pump heater just yet. 

Well I’m glad it’s none of the scientists I worked with on the first modern day climate change study that I worked on from 1990. I was responsible for setting up the computing and data storage infrastructure for this project. 

As I mentioned on another thread it’s important to understand and clarify your sources of information (or misinformation). 

The last sentence sums it up….

I wish the Daily Mail and the Sun would both go to “sleep” permanently. 

3 hours ago, Slarti said:

4 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You better get to spec savers!! 

You never posted the headline.

It’s just atypical sensationalism across mainstream journalism these days. 

Clickbait shite. 

4 hours ago, Slarti said:

5 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You better get to spec savers!! What does the headline say? 

You never posted the headline.

 

 

Not at all.

You posted a screenshot without the headline then made a comment that referred to the missing headline and, seemingly, expected people to know that you were referring to information that wasn't presented.

Then, instead of just saying "oops" and posting that screenshot of the headline, you double down on your error by trying to accuse someone else of not reading properly and missing the "first line" - you know, the first line that you never supplied.

It’s just atypical sensationalism across mainstream journalism these days. 
Clickbait shite. 

Absolutely.

If he'd actually posted the headline, I might have known what he was referring to, though.

11 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Not at all.

You posted a screenshot without the headline then made a comment that referred to the missing headline and, seemingly, expected people to know that you were referring to information that wasn't presented.

Then, instead of just saying "oops" and posting that screenshot of the headline, you double down on your error by trying to accuse someone else of not reading properly and missing the "first line" - you know, the first line that you never supplied.

I thought (obviously in error) that if people wanted to read the full article they could access it themselves. You could just have taken my word for it in the first place. 

I thought (obviously in error) that if people wanted to read the full article they could access it themselves. You could just have taken my word for it in the first place. 

A link would have been helpful in that case. You originally never mentioned the (missing) headline, just mentioned "warmest January" as if it was your opinion on what you had posted (i.e. the screenshot).

35 minutes ago, Slarti said:

47 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

I thought (obviously in error) that if people wanted to read the full article they could access it themselves. You could just have taken my word for it in the first place. 

A link would have been helpful in that case. You originally never mentioned the (missing) headline, just mentioned "warmest January" as if it was your opinion on what you had posted (i.e. the screenshot).

I actually don’t know how to add a link, hence all my posts contain screenshots 😅

7 hours ago, Slarti said:

7 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Sure why not. I think I first heard about it on tomorrow’s world? On a timescale somewhere between the ozone layer disappearing and acid rain destroying the world. The timescale for the ice age has now been moved to between 2030-40 according to the Washington post article below. Don’t think I will bother investing in that air pump heater just yet. 

Do you not think that the actions taken, e.g. banning CFCs, had an effect on those predictions?

It may have had an effect on the issues in the New scientist article (aerosol quadrupling) however the Washington times article is concerned with the Maunder Minimum which would not be related to CFCs in the atmosphere. (See below) Given the amount of different experts telling me about the different catastrophes which are going to happen in the future, you can see why people of my generation tend to be sceptical about man made climate change. 

3 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Well I’m glad it’s none of the scientists I worked with on the first modern day climate change study that I worked on from 1990. I was responsible for setting up the computing and data storage infrastructure for this project. 

As I mentioned on another thread it’s important to understand and clarify your sources of information (or misinformation). 

The last sentence sums it up….

I wish the Daily Mail and the Sun would both go to “sleep” permanently. 

Why would you question sources from the Sun and Daily Mail? Would it misinformation? What if the Guardian or the independent printed it, would that be a reliable source? All these papers print story’s from academic sources, sometimes from the same original source.

A major concern is the impact of methane release due to the polar ice reduction. Methane is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating
 

It was estimated that as much as 30million tonnes of ice an hour was being lost recently in Greenland alone. 

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/17/greenland-losing-30m-tonnes-of-ice-an-hour-study-reveals

1 minute ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Why would you question sources from the Sun and Daily Mail? Would it misinformation? What if the Guardian or the independent printed it, would that be a reliable source? All these papers print story’s from academic sources, sometimes from the same original source.

I would question all newspapers and how they report. My family have a working history within the newspaper industry going back about 100 years. Negative scare stories sell more than positive things. The stats back that up by a considerable margin. 

I worked alongside some really clever scientists who worked in weather forecasting and specifically climate change. They were renowned throughout the world.
I spent many hours in their company and reading their work. Often what they wrote was completely misrepresented by MSM due to poor journalism. Click bait existed back in the 90s too. It’s not something new. Goes back to when printed stories first began. 

I certainly will not believe one word from newspapers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail. Same goes for the BBC and other mainstream media like the Guardian and the Independent. 

I’ve been down this path with you before. Next you will tell me the bible is a true story too! 

Anyone have a mobile number for Noah? We might be needing him sooner than we think. 😂 

It may have had an effect on the issues in the New scientist article (aerosol quadrupling) however the Washington times article is concerned with the Maunder Minimum which would not be related to CFCs in the atmosphere. (See below) Given the amount of different experts telling me about the different catastrophes which are going to happen in the future, you can see why people of my generation tend to be sceptical about man made climate change. 

The Maunder Minimum - being the lack of sun spots (and having a minimal contribution to the mini ice age) - ended in 1715. More sun spots (as we've had since then), in combination with a depleted ozone layer (caused by CFCs etc), would allow more UV through and potentially cause more warming.

Everything's linked, no effect (positive or negative) stands alone.

If man made climate change is not real it still does no harm to the planet to act as if it is. If it is real and we act as if it isn't, then we have potentially f**ked up the planet (at least short-term (geologicaly)), f**ked ourselves and also many other living organisms.

Why look after your house if you're not going to look after your street, your neighbourhood, your town, etc? It's all linked, no man is an island, blah, blah blah.

How would you feel if a smoker blew smoke in your face and, when you complained, they said "I don't believe all that science stuff that says it's bad"?

Anyway, enough of this.

11 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

The Maunder Minimum - being the lack of sun spots (and having a minimal contribution to the mini ice age) - ended in 1715. More sun spots (as we've had since then), in combination with a depleted ozone layer (caused by CFCs etc), would allow more UV through and potentially cause more warming.

Everything's linked, no effect (positive or negative) stands alone.

If man made climate change is not real it still does no harm to the planet to act as if it is. If it is real and we act as if it isn't, then we have potentially f**ked up the planet (at least short-term (geologicaly)), f**ked ourselves and also many other living organisms.

Why look after your house if you're not going to look after your street, your neighbourhood, your town, etc? It's all linked, no man is an island, blah, blah blah.

How would you feel if a smoker blew smoke in your face and, when you complained, they said "I don't believe all that science stuff that says it's bad"?

Anyway, enough of this.

 

Or too use another anology, that toe nail looks a bit infected, best just cut the leg off just in case. 

Or too use another anology, that toe nail looks a bit infected, best just cut the leg off just in case. 

No, it would be "that toenail might be infected, best take this medication just in case, even though it might not be."

Or, put this sun protection on, it might prevent you getting skin cancer. You might not get skin cancer if you don't put it on, but if you do it's too late to try and prevent it. You might still get skin cancer even if you do put it on, but at least you tried to prevent it.

On 11/27/2023 at 8:10 PM, W6er said:

South Korea doesn't accept many asylum seekers:

https://www.worlddata.info/asia/south-korea/asylum.php

 

Just look at that table! 😲

Japan accepts less than 1% of asylum seekers, too: 

https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/06/28/japan-is-making-asylum-even-harder-for-refugees

They've also proposed a bill that would mean migrants are detained indefinitely, well presumably until they're removed from the country:

 

I never knew any of that! Thanks for the inspiration.  

South korea has an expansive border with a hostile power, populated by people whose language and appearance would be fairly homogenous within the established population

Japan is nearby (ish) and is constantly threatened by missile launches carried outby the same hostile neighbour.  Given the risk of espionage and subversion by this power, I think we can allow them some leeway when it comes to scrutiny of asylum seekers

On 12/4/2023 at 7:17 PM, ALBIONSAINT said:

Failed three times to tell police the identity of person driving her Tesla. Maybe it was racist police asking her? 

Would you discuss the ethnicity of the officers involved when a white driver refuses to disclose?

On 12/7/2023 at 9:05 PM, Cookie Monster said:

Didn't you get compensation for injuring yourself on something that you knew could hurt yourself. 🫕.........

He obviously disregards his salary.

On 1/10/2024 at 10:49 PM, W6er said:

One can only speculate as to what the purpose of these tunnels was:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67938683

apparently to hasten-on the expansion of the temple