• 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!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "The Yamal Implosion"

Collapse

  • Sysman
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Could the port have been on the river? Rather than a sea port?
    There's Newport in Shropshire too, but the river clogged up (can't remember when, but relatively recently).
    Last edited by Sysman; 1 October 2009, 18:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sysman
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I read today that archaeologists have just discovered a roman emperor's house at the site of an old roman port near Rome.

    Today that port is by the airport, two miles inland. Sea levels must have changed significantly over the past 2000 years or so.
    You don't need to go back 2000 years. Coastlines are always changing.

    Leave a comment:


  • HairyArsedBloke
    replied
    It was man made global warming from the fumes from all those Christian they burnt. Or sumfink like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Addanc View Post

    Why does everybody jump to the "It must be man made global warming" conclusion? Drugs, inbreeding, using the Guardian as a reference text?
    All of the above

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post


    Thanks for the laugh.

    You've been saying? You seem to think you're some sort of Nobel prize intellect rather than than some Swindon Saddo.
    And the only "models" you'd be familiar with would be found on page 3 of the Sun.
    I trust DimPrawn completely. He didn't become a millionaire by not knowing stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    I've been saying since day one that the man made climate change mantra is utter bollox from a scienctific basis.

    The models that underpin the "science" are laughable.


    Thanks for the laugh.

    You've been saying? You seem to think you're some sort of Nobel prize intellect rather than than some Swindon Saddo.
    And the only "models" you'd be familiar with would be found on page 3 of the Sun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Looking at google maps, the port the ampitheatre was built on is on the mouth of the river Tiber and consequently the area is prone to lots of silting

    I think we can safely assume that the shoreline has moved out into the sea due to river deposits

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by cybersquatter View Post
    Even if sea levels have risen, what's to suggest that's man-made?

    Why are the two issues persistently conflated?
    Because you can't tax acts of God but you can tax men( and women, Stan)!

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by cybersquatter View Post
    Even if sea levels have risen, what's to suggest that's man-made?

    Why are the two issues persistently conflated?
    They probably fell to expose the land between the building and sea

    Leave a comment:


  • cybersquatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I read today that archaeologists have just discovered a roman emperor's house at the site of an old roman port near Rome.

    Today that port is by the airport, two miles inland. Sea levels must have changed significantly over the past 2000 years or so.
    Even if sea levels have risen, what's to suggest that's man-made?

    Why are the two issues persistently conflated?

    Leave a comment:


  • Addanc
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I read today that archaeologists have just discovered a roman emperor's house at the site of an old roman port near Rome.

    Today that port is by the airport, two miles inland. Sea levels must have changed significantly over the past 2000 years or so.
    OR ALTERNATIVELY the cost line has changed over time; some of it gets eroded and deposited elsewhere. Other possibilities the land is rising; the southern part of Britain is still sinking as a result of the fact that there isn't any ice sheets sat on top of north Europe anymore.

    Why does everybody jump to the "It must be man made global warming" conclusion? Drugs, inbreeding, using the Guardian as a reference text?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I wondered that, but it says the port was twice as big as Southampton, and the map doesn't show it on the river.

    BTW it was an amphitheatre they discovered, rather than just a house.
    you could post a link to the article

    Or would that suggest that global warming isn't happening and your hypothesis is false?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Could the port have been on the river? Rather than a sea port?
    I wondered that, but it says the port was twice as big as Southampton, and the map doesn't show it on the river.

    BTW it was an amphitheatre they discovered, rather than just a house.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I read today that archaeologists have just discovered a roman emperor's house at the site of an old roman port near Rome.

    Today that port is by the airport, two miles inland. Sea levels must have changed significantly over the past 2000 years or so.
    Could the port have been on the river? Rather than a sea port?

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I read today that archaeologists have just discovered a roman emperor's house at the site of an old roman port near Rome.

    Today that port is by the airport, two miles inland. Sea levels must have changed significantly over the past 2000 years or so.
    That'll be them V8 chariots they had back then.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X