Sky HighFeel free to attempt to do so.
I appreciate the offer, Grey Area, but I don’t think I am seeing eye to eye with many here so I’ll just rest my case and if we are all still posting here in a decade we can revisit our arguments. I’ll happily eat humble pie, if I am wrong, and assume others will if they are.
Sky HighOf course! :rolleyes: 😀
Paul
Ah, ha, Paul – am I missing something……:confused:
Sky HighOf course! :rolleyes: 😀
Paul
Ah, ha, Paul – am I missing something……:confused:
Sky Highwhy cant the media leave this lady alone in particular Jonathan Ross,Graham Norton and Matthew Wright,all these idiotic schoolboys love to pour scorn on her and make constant references to her looks ,(non of the afore mentioned people would win any beauty contests themselves)one wonders how they would react if people ridiculed a member of their family the way they have ridiculed this woman.
To a great extent I agree but a couple of thoughts and I have never heard her or seen her. The old adage says that all publicity is good publicity and I reckon there is a degree of truth in that. And if she really is as good as the hype then she will win out anyway, won’t she?
Sky Highwhy cant the media leave this lady alone in particular Jonathan Ross,Graham Norton and Matthew Wright,all these idiotic schoolboys love to pour scorn on her and make constant references to her looks ,(non of the afore mentioned people would win any beauty contests themselves)one wonders how they would react if people ridiculed a member of their family the way they have ridiculed this woman.
To a great extent I agree but a couple of thoughts and I have never heard her or seen her. The old adage says that all publicity is good publicity and I reckon there is a degree of truth in that. And if she really is as good as the hype then she will win out anyway, won’t she?
Sky HighThe P-51D was a big help in the outcome of the WW2.
But it was so as a building block to victory!
One could argue that without the RAF/RN etc there would have been no staging post (i.e. the UK!) from which to launch the offensive on German occuppied Europe.
These questions are amusing but that is all…..if the P-51D was not around, the Allies would have had more of a particular other aircraft type….and someone would be asking ‘What if we did not have the Haemerrhoid Mk 1 or whatever else we may have had instead’.
Dont get me wrong, I love the Mustang but all things in context.
Paul Gallico wrote…(or I think it was him) ‘We needed the Spitfire, but we had to have the Hurricane’….relevant stuff!
As Tangers said, you need to surgically see what role and ops we used the Stang for and then decide if another type would have been ok for it….as far as I see, the ability (range) for the P-51 to escort the bombers to and from the target was a godsend for daylight bombing raids.
We did bomb by night too though, where escort fighters were not as important and nightfighter roles were primarily twin engined (more fuel internally).They didnt call it the road to victory for nothing….each part of the Allied services and each weapon was a building brick to success….
I realise there are a few generalisations in there…but hey ho…I am supposed to be working!
And wasn’t it Galland who, on being asked by Goering to name what he wanted to beat the RAF, said the Spitfire. Or is that apochryphal?;)
Sky HighChicago O’Hare and Dallas Fort Worth have seven runways each
I was aware of Schiphol, having used it frequently but not Chicago and Dulles. Is it simply to keep the movements to a maximum by utilising two in and two out or have they just evolved, leaving earlier runways unused?
Sky HighIt would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here suffice to deal with your penultimate sentence, because it is the most important. I heartily agree with the first part but not the second. If one accepts the inevitability of global warming then it is a scandalous waste of money to try to mitigate the inevitable. The current targets call for trillions of pounds to be spent on reducing CO2 levels based on, let us say, dubious science. The effects on mankind are likely to be far worse than doing nothing.
Sooner or later it is probable that mankind will be wiped out by a massive cooling or warming in any case. All we will have achieved is a huge reduction in mankind’s quality of life for an unknown, unpredictable catastrophe.
Sky HighIt would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here suffice to deal with your penultimate sentence, because it is the most important. I heartily agree with the first part but not the second. If one accepts the inevitability of global warming then it is a scandalous waste of money to try to mitigate the inevitable. The current targets call for trillions of pounds to be spent on reducing CO2 levels based on, let us say, dubious science. The effects on mankind are likely to be far worse than doing nothing.
Sooner or later it is probable that mankind will be wiped out by a massive cooling or warming in any case. All we will have achieved is a huge reduction in mankind’s quality of life for an unknown, unpredictable catastrophe.
Sky HighI’m going to leave this now because there’s not enough facts coming back – such as the evidence or motive for why somebody deliberately manipulates data.
But glad we agree that the planet is warming – saves discussing the “hockey stick”.
Whether it has levelled off or not – I presume you mean this graph
You’re right, we don’t know which way it will go next year and to base an assumption that it has levelled off on three or fours years of data is fundamentally flawed. There is simply too much variation in the data to draw such a conclusion. Draw the graph as far as 1995 and you would have a much lower mean than shown.
EDIT to add – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm
Perhaps you should direct your question to Prof Mann and others who manipulated the data. We have our theories and some rather interesting facts emerged during the senate hearings, but that’s for him to answer. I would have thought that the hockey stick and the more recent duplicity at CPL cannot be ignored, much as the IPCC and others would wish.
I am not drawing any conclusions, just stating a fact. And really you are making my point for me. Facts are in short supply in this debate.
The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia and it will continue to warm and cool until it dies. Those facts are indisputable but what is disputable is why. And it seems to me that to blame warming in the last few decades on a phenomenum that has only existed for a tiny fraction of the earth’s life is ridiculous.
Yes, that graph is one of a number readily available.
Sky HighI’m going to leave this now because there’s not enough facts coming back – such as the evidence or motive for why somebody deliberately manipulates data.
But glad we agree that the planet is warming – saves discussing the “hockey stick”.
Whether it has levelled off or not – I presume you mean this graph
You’re right, we don’t know which way it will go next year and to base an assumption that it has levelled off on three or fours years of data is fundamentally flawed. There is simply too much variation in the data to draw such a conclusion. Draw the graph as far as 1995 and you would have a much lower mean than shown.
EDIT to add – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm
Perhaps you should direct your question to Prof Mann and others who manipulated the data. We have our theories and some rather interesting facts emerged during the senate hearings, but that’s for him to answer. I would have thought that the hockey stick and the more recent duplicity at CPL cannot be ignored, much as the IPCC and others would wish.
I am not drawing any conclusions, just stating a fact. And really you are making my point for me. Facts are in short supply in this debate.
The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia and it will continue to warm and cool until it dies. Those facts are indisputable but what is disputable is why. And it seems to me that to blame warming in the last few decades on a phenomenum that has only existed for a tiny fraction of the earth’s life is ridiculous.
Yes, that graph is one of a number readily available.
Sky HighNo – the problem was that it was done way back in 1998 and the science has advanced. If you are saying it is totally discredited then you are saying that there is no global warming – man-made or otherwise.
Much more data has been added to the debate, the way it is analysed is more sophisticated and now even governments accept that the planet is warming.
Even if you ignore Mann et all (1998) “The Hockey Stick” there is plenty of other evidence – see here
You are confusing a number of things here.
1. The discrediting of the hockey stick is significant because the facts were being deliberately manipulated to produce the result required. I.e. proof of MMGW. Yes the science has advanced but not to support the hockey stick. All the computer models without the algorithm do not show a hockey stick.
2. To attribute a denial by me that the world is warming is factually incorrect.
3. “Even governments accept that the planet is warming”. Well, firstly of course they do because it is, or at least was until 4 or 5 years ago. And secondly of course they do because that is their agenda and that is why they are expending millions of pounds and thousands of tons of CO2 babbling together in Denmark.
4. Your final confusionm is to assume that I and presumably others deny the planet is warming. It did indeed start to warm but has now levelled off and no one knows what will happen next. I totally accept the warming and cooling cycles which have been taking place since long before man emmitted a single gram of CO2. And it will without any doubt whatsoever warm and cool in the millenia to come. But our contention is that we will not be causing it and we can nothing to prevent it.
Sky HighNo – the problem was that it was done way back in 1998 and the science has advanced. If you are saying it is totally discredited then you are saying that there is no global warming – man-made or otherwise.
Much more data has been added to the debate, the way it is analysed is more sophisticated and now even governments accept that the planet is warming.
Even if you ignore Mann et all (1998) “The Hockey Stick” there is plenty of other evidence – see here
You are confusing a number of things here.
1. The discrediting of the hockey stick is significant because the facts were being deliberately manipulated to produce the result required. I.e. proof of MMGW. Yes the science has advanced but not to support the hockey stick. All the computer models without the algorithm do not show a hockey stick.
2. To attribute a denial by me that the world is warming is factually incorrect.
3. “Even governments accept that the planet is warming”. Well, firstly of course they do because it is, or at least was until 4 or 5 years ago. And secondly of course they do because that is their agenda and that is why they are expending millions of pounds and thousands of tons of CO2 babbling together in Denmark.
4. Your final confusionm is to assume that I and presumably others deny the planet is warming. It did indeed start to warm but has now levelled off and no one knows what will happen next. I totally accept the warming and cooling cycles which have been taking place since long before man emmitted a single gram of CO2. And it will without any doubt whatsoever warm and cool in the millenia to come. But our contention is that we will not be causing it and we can nothing to prevent it.
Sky HighI’m sure you are right.
The scientists know nothing, the internet chatterers have it correct.
Halleluah! – We are all saved.
Here endeth my contribution to this futile ‘debate’
Moggy
That is a bit like the baby throwing his toys out of the pram. The subject is so very important that the debate is vital. The tragedy is that the warmists have closed their eyes and ears to any contradiction of the adopted view. Blinkered vision coupled with the ostrich stance afflicts our world leaders and it is appalling.
If you are interested there is plenty of science freely available on the internet and in print to support what I and many, many others have been saying here and elsewhere. It may be, however, that like the majority of warmists any consideration of the contradictory view is unnacceptable.
Those of us who take a more rational view have already been compared with holocaust deniers, such is the loathing in which we are held. I pity the warmists but ultimately they will ruin us all with their hair-brained schemes.
Sky HighI’m sure you are right.
The scientists know nothing, the internet chatterers have it correct.
Halleluah! – We are all saved.
Here endeth my contribution to this futile ‘debate’
Moggy
That is a bit like the baby throwing his toys out of the pram. The subject is so very important that the debate is vital. The tragedy is that the warmists have closed their eyes and ears to any contradiction of the adopted view. Blinkered vision coupled with the ostrich stance afflicts our world leaders and it is appalling.
If you are interested there is plenty of science freely available on the internet and in print to support what I and many, many others have been saying here and elsewhere. It may be, however, that like the majority of warmists any consideration of the contradictory view is unnacceptable.
Those of us who take a more rational view have already been compared with holocaust deniers, such is the loathing in which we are held. I pity the warmists but ultimately they will ruin us all with their hair-brained schemes.
Sign In
