DaveLister
-
Posts
585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Posts posted by DaveLister
-
-
It means with working in collaboration with another medical profession. Before my doctor retired he went "en binome" with another doctor for a couple of years. Think job-share.
-
Fine, but only red or yellow.
Green gives me heartburn.
-
Absolute Zero (2019 publication)
Do I get a prize?
-
Anytime
-
2 hours ago, Harnser said:
You shouldn't be able to read more than the first few lines and the header image.
That's all I could read after I logged out.
Well maybe somebody up there likes me😇
The telegraph article mentions the charity who organised the trip so I found the story on their website. If anyone else wants to read this story but has your 'paywall' problem they can get it here.
-
Beautiful 📷
-
That's strange, no paywall came up for me. I can read it fine and I'm not a subscriber.
-
10 hours ago, fromagebleu said:
if the the TFonc is proportioned out, which I assume it has been, and the t hab is now only paid by second homers why should I be paying for it when I no longer own it? and only owned it for part of the year?
You owned it on the first of January therefore you are liable for the whole year. It might seem odd to you but it's the way it is. If you had bought another house in France its' TF & TdH would have to be paid by the previous owner until January 1st 2023.
I've looked up the second home issue and you have no exclusions or reductions I'm afraid.
https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34715
I should warn you, late payment incurs a 10% surcharge.
-
Both Taxe d'habitation and Taxe fonciere are paid by whoever owns a property on 1st January for that year. Selling it later in the year doesn't change your liability. It's true that a lot of Notaires will include a clause in the sale whereby the Taxe fonciere is split prorata but is is not a legal requirement as far as the tax authorities are concerned. For your notaire to do this your buyer would have had to agree in advance.
-
I love the fact the kid is wearing a mask🤭
-
9 hours ago, Harnser said:
There is a condition called “implausible undeniablility,”
Actually there isn't, it's just something someone made up on a forum (Prove me wrong😀). In fact your whole posting should be in quotation marks as it's a direct lift ( quote of the month in April if I'm right ) and, whilst I realise I'm being pedantic, Churchill actually said
"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is."
More poetic don't you think?
My point is, Truth, just like Proofs cannot be absolute. They are shaped by our experience of the world. I suggest, if you get a chance, you read "The Day The Universe Changed" by James Burke. It's an eye opener in more ways than one.
-
Don't worry Mr B. I think the conversation has run it's course.
-
and your reply reminds me of a standard bot response.
In answer to your question, unless you can give me 'incontestable proof' that you are in fact a human being I can assure you that I am more of an adult that you will ever be.
-
33 minutes ago, Ken said:
So give the proof, incontestable proof; you can't!
Because incontestable proof doesn't exist.
No one can prove the world is round
Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them.
No one can prove that the stars are far away.
No one can even prove that you exist Ken. You may just be a figment of my imagination which itself might be an algorithm in a computer network.
prove me wrong.
-
13 minutes ago, Ken said:
How about unequivocal proof. If that's difficult to understand try 'proof' that hasn't been contested. Off you go, scour the internet; must be some irrefutable proof out there I feel sure!
No, your turn.
You find me a 'proof' that isn't contested by someone, somewhere.
You find me an example of your high standard.
The earth is round? Still contested by some.
Man landed on the moon? Contested by even more.
Sandy Hill Massacre? Anyone??
-
I note you haven't answered the question Ken.
What would you accept as proof.
-
Yep, that's exactly it, discussing how to interpret raw data to provide an accurate model. Just like any good scientist.
The 1940's ocean blip for example was caused by WW2.
Prior to that, the UK and US fleets had contributed roughly equally to the global temperature record. From 1942 to 1945, UK ships were mobilised on the front and contributed just 5% of measurements. Measurements taken from US ships made up 80%.
The key, then, is how each nation took its measurements. UK ships tended to throw a bucket overboard and lift it on deck to take the water’s temperature. US ships by and large would sample water drawn into the engine room before it was used to cool the machinery.
Researchers have known for some time that each method has a bias. Temperatures measured in the buckets tend to be lower than those obtained when a thermometer is placed directly into the ocean because heat escapes from it as it is heaved on deck. The type of bucket can influence the temperature as well: wooden buckets, common in the 19th century, offer better insulation than the canvas buckets used in the 20th century. Engine room measurements, on the other hand, tend to be higher than the actual water temperature because these rooms are hot.
So a temperature record dominated by US measurements in the early 1940s would show the sea surface to be warmer than it actually was at the time.
Moreover, late in 1945, the UK resumed its measurements and for a period was responsible for half the global record while the US share dropped to 30%. This period is biased towards cooler, bucket-based temperatures, and corresponds to the sudden 1945 dip.
It's reckoned that the fallout from the UEA data hack lost the world ten years. They never did find out who did it.
-
Love the music, hate the musician.
-
20 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:
I was aware of the blog post and saw the BBC drama about the Prof, he worked at the Climate Research Unit near where I used to live.
If that's the sum total of the 'proof' that NASA commit data fraud that's pretty poor.
As far as I'm aware the only other 'controversy' around NASA's data stems from an open letter from former employees requesting NASA refrain from commenting on what they consider a debatable situation. The reasons for their letter are not made clear and, if I was inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I'd suspect I'd be looking for links to the oil industry. Unfortunately as someone once said "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is lacing up his boots"
-
56 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:
Where is your proof of that?
It comes from an old blog post by a climate change denier which was picked up by Fox News in 2014. Stacy Dooley on Fox and Friends pointed out that, up until the year 2000, NASA had declared 1934 the hottest year on record then 'suddenly' changed their mind and announced it was 1998. Unfortunately the reasoning is a little complicated for the average American so "conspiracy" was shouted from the rooftops. To put it very simply temperature measurements were taken very differently when records began. Some of the measuring stations didn't exist a hundred years ago, or were in a different place. Temperatures might have been taken in the morning or the afternoon whereas nowadays they are taken at night. There were many reasons why it was not reasonable to compare apples with pears so computer models were designed to extrapolate more accurate trends from the historic data available. Such models have become common place, not just at NASA. If you have not seen the BBC drama "The Trick" about a Norfolk professor accused of massaging the same raw data to prove the existence of Climate change I suggest you look it out.
-
I second the question Ken. What would you regard as proof?
It is an empirical fact that human activity is releasing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the planet is capable of reabsorbing. It is a scientific fact that these gasses help prevent heat from leaving the planet. They are the reason we don't all freeze to death at night when we are out of sight of the sun. Logic would say more gas would lead to more heat retention.
The question is what happens next. You believe that 'the weather' will evolve. You're right. Unfortunately the evolution will probably lead to extinction. There is another planet in the solar system whose 'weather' has evolved following a dramatic greenhouse event and that's Venus.
-
In her last speech in the HOC before she resigned Suella Braverman blamed road protests on 'the Tofu eating wokerati'.
For reasons I'm not sure about the Daily Star decided to test whether or not the Truss premiership would last longer than an iceberg lettuce. They had a live feed of the vegetable on their website which gained fame around the world. The lettuce won and, although a little brown around the edges, has vowed to stand against Truss in the next GE.
-
1
-
-
Braverman lost to Tofu, Truss lost to a lettuce, vegans are having an amazing week. 🥬
-
1
-
1
-
-
Oh FFS. She could have stuck it out for another fortnight. When I found out you didn't need to be a UK resident, or even a UK national to be a member of the Conservative Party I stumped up the 25 quid for a laugh. If she'd held on for another two weeks I would have been eligible to vote.
Oh well, chances are there will be another one before the next election.
No more cars (with combustion engine!) From 2035
in Other Topics
Posted
Small couple of interjections.
Professor Michaels has always admitted that the majority of his founding comes from the fossil fuel industry and that he was retained as an expert by the coal industry.
He is deceased.