My mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Yet another cold Winter
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostMy mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.
just a suggestion likeCoffee's for closersComment
-
Originally posted by Spacecadet View Postshe could try not sitting in the conservatory when it's cold
just a suggestion likeComment
-
The sciencey bit....
Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?
The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.
FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.
Evidence
Discussion
As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....
If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.Comment
-
Facts? You can prove anything that's true with facts.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostHands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?
The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.
FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.
Evidence
Discussion
As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....
If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?
The earliest prolonged cold spell for 17 years will take a grip on Britain from today.
Heavy snowfalls will begin a ‘big freeze’ that could last ten days, forecasters have warned.
Arctic conditions are expected to sweep across the country over the week, depositing up to ten inches of snow in the worst affected areas.
Forecasters say it is likely to be the earliest significant snow over a ‘large part of the country’ since 1993 and appears to indicate a trend of winter starting earlier than ever.
Take that you Charlatan!Comment
-
Warming was caused by cosmic rays.
New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf
The composite sample shows a positive correlation between statistically significant cloud changes and variations in the short-term GCR flux (Fig. 1): increases in the GCR flux
occur around day −5 of the composite, and correspond to significant localised mid-latitude increases in cloud change. After this time, the GCR flux undergoes a statistically significant decrease (1.2 GU) centred on the key date of the composite; these changes correspond to widespread statistically significant decreases in cloud change (3.5 CU, 1.9 CU globallyaveraged) over mid-latitude regions.
Your theory has now has massive holes in it.I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostWarming was caused by cosmic rays.
New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf
.... to AGW bozo's that means.
Your theory has now has massive holes in it.
Can't tax cosmic rays, so we'll have to stick with the CO2 scam for now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pjclarke View PostHands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?
The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.
FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level.
Anything you say after that is excuse making and trying to make the facts fit the expectationCoffee's for closersComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostWarming was caused by cosmic rays.
New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf
Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment