Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,950 Excellent

About Forethat

  • Rank
    PGA Member

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Hua Hin/Sussex

Recent Profile Visitors

12,676 profile views
  1. If you read my post again you'll find that I expect the economic damage to be severe. A No Deal Brexit will have serious ramifications for both the UK and the EU, and you won't be able to solve that by allowing the EU to tax individual member states. The £33B is, as you point out, peanuts...wait until the French wine producers realise that they've been outbid by American, Chilean, Australian and New Zealand wineries...and the producers of vegetables...and fruit...and cars...on both sides.
  2. So we have an accord then, the money WASN'T always going to be paid? It'll be interesting when the lawyers have crunched through the terms on this one, don't you think..?
  3. That's your OPINION and not a legally cemented fact. There's a huge difference there...
  4. I get the impression it's this deal or nothing. There won't be an extension. I guess that's Juncker's way of telling UK that "we're desperate to get the £33B and would suffer irreparable economic damage if you leave with a no deal".
  5. I'd say people are getting pretty sick of these so called "climate activists". Today they dragged them to the ground and kicked the <deleted> out of them. Just saying. https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-drag-xr-protesters-off-tube-try-glue-10933003/
  6. Thanks for reiterating my view written in clear text.
  7. I don't think the deal will pass (I haven't seen the deal so I can't speak on whether I want it to pass or not). But I still suspect the reason BJ has that smug smile on his face is that he knows the request for an extension will be declined by at least one country... Hungary?
  8. So if I understand you correctly, you claim that "data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean" in the same post where you somehow fail to recognise the difference between weather related incidents (allegedly caused by climate changes) and other natural disasters? Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis don't fall into the "weather related" category, they are categorised as "natural disasters". For that reason I specifically included information regarding the categories included (Droughts, Storms, Hurricanes, Wildfires (Forest fires), Extreme cold, Heatwaves and Landslides). But hey, cudos for pointing out that CRED correctly described that the number of deaths due to weather related incidents have decreased. And again, if you want to know by how much you can simply look at the graph I posted. Is there anything specific you want me to look into, like droughts? I'm sure you'll be able to find hundreds of articles where it is claimed that droughts are more frequent and severe the last 20 years due to "climate changes" (almost guaranteed in the Guardian). But are they? Hurricanes and hurricane landfalls are often claimed to have increased and to be more severe the last 20 years. But is that true? What I'm saying is, don't believe everything you read in the Guardian or Washington Post.
  9. I decided to check how bad it actually is. And when I say CHECK I mean analyse some real data rather than trust media and look at whatever pictures they post for you guys to see. It actually doesn't look too bad. At least the weather isn't claiming more casualties than they did 100 years ago. I'll dig around a little to see if I can find any D-A-T-A regarding crops and populations as well. Data is king! *All data from CRED (https://www.emdat.be/database) One question: is this when I can expect posters to try to discredit the source and accuse me of lies (as well as accusations of not posting a link to the data)...?
  10. I read an article somewhere about geoenergy and heat exchangers. It was mentioned that Norway is about to ban the use of oil boilers. I can't find the article now but if I recall correctly there were in the neighbourhood of 100K oil boilers still in use in Norway. Sweden, in comparison, had half that amount. The most popular heating technology was electricity. The second most popular was geoenergy (they drill a hole in the ground to some 100m and pull the heat out of the ground with a ground source heat pump). Pretty cool technology.
  11. Well, I guess I operate on a completely different level of understanding than what you do since I had no problem finding and reviewing the source as it was written in clear text.
  12. I have never claimed to have linked to that image. I claimed to have referenced the data set on the page I linked to. NASA:a data set. You're wrong again.
  13. It's not the wrong link. How hard can it be? Here's a screenshot. Pay particular attention to the heading: "Facts" and "Global Temperature". I have used exactly the same data as NASA. The data is available on that page as well. I'm sorry but I simply have to ask: are you trolling or are you actually serious?
  • Create New...