|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 19, 2014 10:56:20 GMT
I just hit the wrong bookmark and ended up at the MCL after months, years whatever of not seeing it...In case she's still popping in and out here (she seems to have abandoned her science board, as has everyone else) I must congratulate her on her decisive and almost painful thrashing of those pompous, unbelievably arrogant, almost as incredibly ignorant idiots she's for some reason still bothering to argue with. Exco's display of his utter lack of comprehension of Physics or the nature of such fundamental aspects of our climate as the solar wind, galactic rays, sunspots, or cloud formation would move one to almost feel sorry for the berk, if only he wasn't such an appalling ill-mannered oaf. Marchesa, you're impressive, as is your hard work - hats off to you. Thank you Mister Nic! It keeps the old brain cells ticking over trying to convey the gist of the disputes about climate to the intellectually lower orders. Yes, the INDIRECT "solar" effect of galactic cosmic radiation did rather confuse the poor dear. Evidently neither of them has a clue what sunspots are either, or their connection with the solar wind, or the proven connection of ionisation in the atmosphere with cloud formation or, it seems, with the proven connection of cloud cover with solar insolation. This shocking ignorance of the principal factors in climate driving doesn;t seem to faze them in the slightest - but what else is new. Perhaps you should remind them that whatever they might choose to make up to bolster such ignorance neither sunspots nor cloud cover are included in any climate model used by the IPCC, and that when they are over 70% of 20th Century global warming is fully accounted for.
|
|
|
Post by marchesa/rosa on Oct 19, 2014 12:19:33 GMT
Aubrey has just told me that sunspots are "known about" and ARE included in climate models. Poor dear. His egregious level of misunderstanding, not to say ignorance, does not prevent him lecturing me on mine!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 19, 2014 12:40:18 GMT
I'm not on the MCL, and have no wish to be. But you have been in the past, and you could be again. Because when you write this sort of thing Evidently neither of them has a clue what sunspots are either, or their connection with the solar wind, or the proven connection of ionisation in the atmosphere with cloud formation or, it seems, with the proven connection of cloud cover with solar insolation. This shocking ignorance of the principal factors in climate driving doesn;t seem to faze them in the slightest... on a thread it has nothing to do with, in a place the posters whose posts you're ridiculing don't know about, it must seem to the disinterested observer that you have not enough confidence in your opinions to be willing to subject them to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 19, 2014 22:46:08 GMT
I'm not on the MCL, and have no wish to be. But you have been in the past, and you could be again. Of course I could. I don't want to be. Why would I? Why would anyone? I enjoy debating with Marchesa, I don't mind locking horns with you, but Exco's a pointless waste of space and Aubrey - he's alright, if you're interested in that sort of thing. I grew out of it when I was about 15. You don't seem to have grasped I'm talking to Marchesa. Nothing whatsoever I haven't already informed both of the other remaining members of that board. As for my confidence in my opinions - try again, with something a little more convincing. No one's going to be persuaded for a second with that feeble sort of insult, not even you.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 19, 2014 23:05:25 GMT
I suspect your paraphrasal is missing her actual point entirely... Since she doesn't appear to be about to tell us, I suggest you look at her words and those of mine she was responding to, and see if you can do any better. (My emphasis) My chief objection to this isn't that it's ancecdotal (though of course it is) but that the recognisable distinctions become less observable over time - it suits you to note that the English in Wales are by now pretty indistinguishable from the indigenous inhabitants they live among What do you mean: "indigineous inhabitants" You mean, I presume, those who speak Welsh? Is that what you mean? You don't see it. That's no comfort to those who do. He meant you could be in many parts of this country where English was hardly heard. Duh. He did say what he meant, according to anyone who understands how English is spoken. If you find the fact he's illusrating emotive and fear-inducing, perhaps you'd better ponder on that.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 19, 2014 23:32:20 GMT
cleefarquhar - In one of your replies to me you said: << Yes all these are amazing But tell me,Aqua, what on earth do they have to do with mass immigration? I suggest they have nothing to do with mass immigration >> ncs - In one of yours you said: << I like your point and agree with it wholeheartedly, I'm happy to say. It's just a shame it has nothing to do with what Nay or I or Marchesa or Skylark are talking about. Start a thread about how racism is a thoroughly bad thing and I have little doubt that none of the above at least will, or do, (or have ever done), disagree in the slightest >> I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough, for either of you. My point was about the rapidity of the change we’ve been going thru. Civil partnerships and gay marriage were unthinkable even 10 years ago. You would contend this is a comparable issue. I would say that it is not. You believe or choose to contend on the basis that people's opposition to immigration is based on racialist feelings. Some of it is, no doubt; but that's not the issue - and I would say it never has been. I am very familiar with Powell's career. That's a travesty. Your perception of this problem is seriously skewered by your evident belief that opposition to immigration is due to feelings of racism. That's not the issue - it never was, particluarly, except in a few. Certainly not in Enoch Powell. You sound like one of the technocrats torturing Winston Smith, or blithely signing off on it. You just don't get it. It's nothing to do with tolerance or narrow-mindedness. It's the view you're espousing that's norrow-minded. Thatt's a view affordable and that only makes sense from your comfortable middle-class cushion of protected priviledge. UKIP appeals to people beyond your ken - ordinary working-class people, who have had their opportunities drastically reduced by the totally unfair competition of a sudden influx of people introduced into their market - for work, for housing, for education, for social provision - and who have finally realised that their interests have been completely betrayed by the political parties that they once implicitly trusted would protect them. Not just Tories - Labour's going to take one helluva slap too, you see. No "fear tactic" is required. It's the reality they face, with no sign of it ever abating - it's just going to get hardre and harder. Fewer jobs for their children. Fewer houses. Fewer social resources. And less and less of a recognisable home that they grew up in and once knew. You don't feel this - you can dismiss it all as some sort of "racism". You're well-off, you can move, you never much liked this country anyway, you're going to die soon so what do you care, you like the idea of stuffing it to what you like to think are "tories", you like the idea of rapid change, you don't care...you simply don't care, frankly. But more and more people do - what's important in life, for a stable society, is sinking in.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 20, 2014 0:24:52 GMT
You do presume too much.
And talk some egregious rubbish.
If there really is something of substance in your post that you'd like me to reply to, please point it out.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 20, 2014 8:08:45 GMT
You don't seem to have grasped I'm talking to Marchesa. And you don't seem to have grasped that if you post on an open messageboard, you're also talking to any casual passer-by who doesn't know anything at all about the posters you name. Maybe they'll be full of admiration for the two of you. But maybe, instead, they'll draw the conclusions I suggest.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 20, 2014 9:10:36 GMT
What do you mean: "indigineous inhabitants" What I actually wrote was indigenous inhabitants - it's a category I struggle with myself, but I use it here because cleefy's rather fond of it. For if we are going to talk about the people who are here already as against the new arrivals, how do you suggest we categorise the 'people who object to immigration?' It's becoming especially tricky these days, since the pace of change that aqua notes means that some of those with black or brown skins who were themselves objected to quite recently now feel well established and accepted, and are themselves objecting to the arrival of the East Europeans. And the same will happen in due course to those Poles and Czechs. That's what I mean when I say And when you reply you privilege your own 'seeing' over mine. It's true that neither of us can know with absolute certainty what will happen (about anything, ever), but aqua and I have history on our side. (The marchesa seems to think that in the case of Wales history supports your view, but you've dismissed that argument, and she has not chosen to clarify for us.) Let us now turn to cleefy's ...English is the least heard language in many towns and cities... by which you tell me, according to anyone who understands how English is spoken,He meant you could be in many parts of this country where English was hardly heard. Well, neither statement is true, is it? You know that as well as I do. Let's go back to Wales for a moment. Many times when I have been on the bus that runs from the village where my sister lives into Bangor, I haven't heard a single word of English spoken. I could conclude from this experience that this is a part of Britain where English is hardly heard, or where English is the least heard language. But you and I both know that that wouldn't be true. I don't live there so I don't know the local people, but if I did and I wanted to talk to them, we would converse quite easily in English. You've pointed out yourself that it isn't really necessary for official documents, not to mention the programme notes and surtitles for Welsh National Opera's productions, to be supplied in Welsh as well as English. The full picture against which we must set cleefy's eavesdropping on the private conversations of couples whose mother tongue isn't English in an English town is very similar to the scenario I outline above, as I carefully explained to him. This unfortunately reduced him to hysterical non-comprehension: Hahahah! What an absurd response...you illogical pedantic absurd person! Hahahaha! You triumphantly conclude: Come now, Nick, you know the difference - the language may be emotive and fear-inducing, the facts need not be. Perhaps you'd better ponder on that.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 20, 2014 9:32:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 20, 2014 12:08:40 GMT
Are you really quite stupid or deliberately obtuse? Because some immigrants do well in education does not mean, and cannot possibly mean, (because it is a totally unrelated fact), that the indigenous children are not disadvantaged when masses of non-English speaking pupils arrive in their schools I know of no indigenous parent that would welcome having their child in a class with a large proportion of non-English speaking children, Try realism instead of your usual rose-tinted leftist idealoguery
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 20, 2014 12:16:44 GMT
...Because some immigrants do well in education does not mean...that the indigenous children are disadvantaged... Quite right, cleefy - that's what I said.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 20, 2014 12:19:42 GMT
I know of no indigenous parent that would welcome having their child in a class with a large proportion of non-English speaking children... What do you mean by indigenous parent, cleefy? I think Nick would like to know: What do you mean: "indigineous inhabitants"
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 20, 2014 12:37:35 GMT
I know of no indigenous parent that would welcome having their child in a class with a large proportion of non-English speaking children... What do you mean by indigenous parent, cleefy? I think Nick would like to know: What do you mean: "indigineous inhabitants" Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British Why you have to ask the question defeats me Do you have the same problem with indigenous Kenyans I wonder?t (This dos not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places) But then (you might argue) many Asians (that is really the people I am speaking of mainly) are notoriously the most racist people in the world, aren't they? One must just take a cursory glance at India to arrive at that rational conclusion(and ignore the bleatings of Alibahia Brown)
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 20, 2014 12:42:10 GMT
Aubrey has just told me that sunspots are "known about" and ARE included in climate models. Poor dear. His egregious level of misunderstanding, not to say ignorance, does not prevent him lecturing me on mine! Your patience with Aubrey amazes me. Most sensible people after a while simply avoid him as a (literally) bleating idiot Are you seeking an OBE or higher perhaps?
|
|