- 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!
No really, it was all bulltulip?
Collapse
X
-
-
Oh that - Thought you were talking about that stupid Mayan calendar thing
Although come to think of it, today isn't over yetWork in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here -
The cagw scare mongering would be an idle intellectual curiosity, if it was not for the fact that we are now paying sky high prices for dirt-cheap energy
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
-
Ah, the Washingon Times - founded, and funded, by theMooniesUnification Church.
Next week: DP cites L. Ron Hubbard in a debate about the true meaning of ChristmasComment
-
Originally posted by NickFitz View PostAh, the Washingon Times - founded, and funded, by theMooniesUnification Church.
Next week: DP cites L. Ron Hubbard in a debate about the true meaning of Christmas
luckily Forbes has a similar story
in fact, many main stream news organisations are picking up on the fact that 16 years of no warming just might be a problem for the warming theory
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
Here is the scientific argument from Professor Judith Curry that climate models are bunk.
Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD | Climate Etc.
She is writing a paper about why the models are wrong, and it is her expertise, atmospheric science, so lets wait and see.Last edited by BlasterBates; 22 December 2012, 11:54.I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by zeitghostI see that the current Xmas Bah! Humbug! issue of New Scientist is still going on about AGW in tedious detail.
It's a religion, not science.Comment
-
Originally posted by zeitghostI see that the current Xmas Bah! Humbug! issue of New Scientist is still going on about AGW in tedious detail.
It's a religion, not science.
The IPCC said that the planet would warm by x
When the planet didnt warm by x, they said it would have, but aerosols kept it cool
Now they are saying aerosols have not kept the planet cool
but they seem to have forgotten their original prediction, and have not explained the discrepency
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
- 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
- Secondary NI threshold sinking to £5,000: a limited company director’s explainer Dec 24 09:51
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Dec 23 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
- An IR35 case law look back: contractor must-knows for 2025-26 Dec 18 09:30
- A contractor’s Autumn Budget financial review Dec 17 10:59
Comment