Coinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.
Posts posted by Peckris 2
1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:
It is when the assertions are open to debate but any questioning view is dismissed as the work of conspiracy theorists or climate change deniers.
The problem is that both factions exist - you can't blame the average person for thinking that questioning the current scientific consensus could be evidence of them. However, I accept that you are not part of that whole scene.
Ok, that's reasonable. But I would say the debate is really over a) or b).
I wouldn't say that presenting facts is either 'browbeating' or 'bullying'.
3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:
Why have you studiously ignored all of Old Copper's posts on this thread?
Especially the ones quoting you - some very detailed rebuttals.
Yet you choose to take issue with the very short and unarguable post I made about houses in Canada.
His posts are not visible to me.
7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
The other thing that was once shoved in our faces as evidence of global warming, was pictures of wooden houses in Northern Canada, some of which were leaning at a crazy angle. It was said that they were sinking into the ground because the ground beneath was melting.
I later discovered from a Canadian that the real reason was because the heating/cooking stoves inside the dwellings, were not properly insulated from the ground and/or the stilts were too short/non existent. So the melting was purely down to that. Hence why only some of the houses were affected.
1. I never heard that.
2. However, it seems a silly point (not you, I hasten to add) to 'prove' climate change. I accept the explanation, but cannot see that it in any way 'disproves' climate change.
13 hours ago, blakeyboy said:
Try changing "oil" to "tobacco", "fossil fuels" to "smoking", and "climate change" to cancer"......
Of course. Both are real! Documented evidence of big commercial interests protecting profits above all else.
1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:
No brickbats from me.
A propos of not very much...
I have no definite opinions or expertise on climate science, but likewise would like the media generally to consider facts over a longer spell of time; and being a Classicist, I can confirm that Europe at least was warmer than today in the Roman period. Viz. commercially viable vineyards as far north as Yorkshire proven by archaeology and southern mainland Italy was malarial proven by skeletal analysis. I believe those more expert than me suggest in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now.
Mostly true - yes, wine grapes were grown in British vineyards during the Roman occupation (I did Classics too!). Europe was warmer before the Little Ice Age, whose start date is not exactly known - the consensus seems to be mid-mediaeval but possibly as late as Tudor age - but ended in the mid-19th Century.
However I'd take issue with "in that Roman period Europe was at least two further degrees centigrade warmer than now." The global average temperature for the last 2000 years is shown in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg which indicates we are in a new situation compared with 'recent' (2 millennia!) history.
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:
Oh, c'mon, that is BS writ large. Considering that the orthodoxy on Co2 emissions being solely responsible for higher global temperatures, has got a complete and total strangle hold over the MSM and political leaders worldwide, I truly cannot lend credence to your link.
Genuine scientists disagreeing with the current climate change opinions are not "conspiracy theorists". They just disagree with other scientists.
Oh wow. You watched all 3 one-hour episodes in the few minutes it took you to post your reply? And you wonder (no, you probably don't..) why I don't take you seriously?
22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
It's not a conspiracy theory, simply a variance of scientific opinion.
When the leading sceptical opinion involves oil companies paying certain scientists to deny the role of fossil fuels in climate change, then that's pretty much anybody's definition of a conspiracy.
3 hours ago, Nick said:
Stumbled across an interesting article on the subject.
I looked at that, and googled further about the 'World Climate Declaration' scepticism mentioned in that article (published in a Sceptic journal!). I uncovered this, which 1) shows that there is mining and oil company involvement in the organisation behind the Declaration (Clintel), and 2) quite a lot of questioning the scientific status of the signatories.
4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
They can unequivocally state what they choose.
I choose not to 100% agree with them and retain an open mind on the issue, as do many others. Until that becomes an arrestable offence I will continue to do so.
You choose to be brainwashed by orthodoxy. Your choice.
I choose to believe the vast majority of scientists rather than follow conspiracy theories. Yes, my choice.
8 hours ago, blakeyboy said:
We have affected the climate, and changed it. This is obvious.
What is ridiculous and arrogant is to assert that ALL climate change is down to us.
Forces far greater than we can really imagine have been fighting each other for millions of years,
the result being a constantly shifting climate.
All we have done is added a warming bias to this, but who knows what the climate would have done anyway?
Was it about to go into a warmer period, which we have now exaggerated, or was it about to enter a cooler period, which we have stopped?
Yes, it's true that the Earth has gone through extremes of climate change. During the past x billion years, the planet has been totally frozen over, while at other times it has been a fiery desert. In both extremes life almost died out apart from a few critical bacteria which survived.
We cannot know what the climate will do in 1000 years. We can know what is affecting it - and has affected it since the Industrial Revolution - in recent centuries. We know:
- the effect of industrialisation on the production of CO2
- the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere
- the effect of HCFCs on the ozone layer hole
- the effect of massive destruction of the rainforests
Yes, there are also natural factors. This, from the Met Office's website:
Natural changes to the climate
The leading cause of climate change is human activity and the release of greenhouse gases. However, there are lots of natural causes that also lead to changes in the climate system.
Natural cycles can cause the climate to alternate between warming and cooling. There are also natural factors that force the climate to change, known as 'forcings'. Even though these natural causes contribute to climate change, we know that they are not the primary cause, based on scientific evidence.
Some of these natural cycles include:
- Milankovitch cycles – As Earth travels around the sun, its path and the tilt of its axis can change slightly. These changes, called Milankovitch cycles, affect the amount of sunlight that falls on Earth. This can cause the temperature of Earth to change. However, these cycles take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and are unlikely to be causing the changes to the climate that we are seeing today.
- El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – ENSO is a pattern of changing water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. In an 'El Niño' year, the global temperature warms up, and in a 'La Niña' year, it cools down. These patterns can affect the global temperature for a short amount of time (months or years) but cannot explain the persistent warming that we see today.
Natural forcings that can contribute to climate change include:
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
- Solar irradiance – Changing energy from the sun has affected the temperature of Earth in the past. However, we have not seen anything strong enough to change our climate. Any increase in solar energy would make the entire atmosphere of Earth warm, but we can only see warming in the bottom layer.
- Volcanic eruptions – Volcanoes have a mixed effect on our climate. Eruptions produce aerosol particles that cool Earth, but they also release carbon dioxide, which warms it. Volcanoes produce 50 times less carbon dioxide than humans do, so we know they are not the leading cause of global warming. On top of this, cooling is the dominant effect of volcanic eruptions, not warming.
Indeed so, and if you happen to be even slightly at odds with/or question the mainstream narrative, you're labelled a climate change "denier".
In fact, we know the global temperature has gone up - that is hard quantitative fact. The debate lies in what precisely has caused it. Co2 is just one of a whole range of possibilities. But among the mainstream scientific community, only one is allowed any headroom, that relating to Co2. Nothing else: which to my way of thinking is manifestly unintelligent.
The temperatures have been rising for a lot longer than is ever discussed. Glaciers formed in the ice age have been in continuous retreat for centuries.
I've got a book first published in 1943 called, oddly enough "The Weather". It's a Penguin book by G.H.Kimble. In it there is a chapter called "Is our climate changing?" I wish I could reproduce it all here, but I obviously can't. In the chapter there are headings such as "When Greenland was greener" (11th century) and "The vineyards of England". The author mentions that in Scandinavia and the British Isles rises of the order of 1 to 2 degrees F (so about 1 degree C) occurred between about 1843 and 1943.
At Washington DC during the 20 year period ending 1892, there was a total of 354 days with freezing temperatures (overnight minimums). For the 20 year period ending in 1933, that had dropped to 237.
In Oslo the temperature rose nearly 4 degrees F, so about 2 degrees C between about 1850 and 1943. In Spitsbergen the average December temperature in 1943, was more than 10 degrees F higher then it was in 1913.
Sadly we are confronted by completely closed minds who literally attribute all warming to Co2 emissions.
I don't know why you choose to go against over 90% of the scientific community who state unequivocally that greenhouse gases are the prime cause of the climate change we are experiencing.
Those other historical factors you mention are due to the "mini Ice Age" the planet went through from the late medieval period to the 19th Century. This, from Wikipedia:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region, that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. The time period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850.
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered that the timing and the areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact).
And this diagram should give you pause for thought:
4 hours ago, blakeyboy said:
The climate has varied enormously over the millennia.
It's not that we have affected the climate that offends me.
It's the arrogance that asserts that _all_ climate change is all down to Man's activities that offends me,
because this clearly is not true.
I simply cannot believe the climate change deniers in this forum. Even knowing your politics, I still cannot believe it. Even Boris Johnson was so concerned about it that he passed a law banning new petrol driven cars from 2030, and has promoted energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
You know, does it matter a damn whether climate change is caused by man (yet the facts point very clearly to it)? The average global temperature has steadily increased since it started being measured. And the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during the same period. Ice caps are melting. Coincidence? Obviously not.
Ok, let's indulge ourselves in the climate equivalent of Pascal's wager:
1. Climate change is happening (whether caused by man is not relevant)
2. We can spend trillions trying to prevent or even reverse it.
1. True. 2. True. result: a positive impact on the climate, which improves the lives of every creature on the planet
1. True. 2. False. result: things get worse and worse, and the habitable areas on the planet diminish, with severe fires, floods, storms, etc becoming more and more frequent
1. False. 2. False. result: things stay much as they are now
1. False. 2. True. result: the world economy goes into the same recession as covid caused, and all for no good reason.
This shows that the second alternative is by far the worst. I'd rather be proved wrong on climate knowing that even so we did our best in case (as the science indicates) it was true.
"Would the coins historical value decrease if I did the same? "
No, not its historical value, especially what is personal to you. Obviously its actual monetary value will be severely affected.
4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
As a driver myself, I know that motorists will normally pull in to the side of the road in order to let an ambulance pass.
Not possible in gridlock on the M25.
But these twats wouldn't let anyone go by and when tackled about holding up ambulances, said they didn't care. This did happen as I saw the guy say it on a news bulletin at the time. They may have denied it later, but it was 100% definitely said.
If they say they don't care about holding up ambulances, then yes they will definitely lose public support.
They may not be XR but they're still eco loons as far as I'm concerned. Nothing wrong with protesting, but when they start deliberately getting in the way of others going about their everyday business, holding up the emergency services, glueing themselves to the road, climbing on top of trains, is when they alienate the public. As far as I'm concerned, if they're so keen to be there, handcuff them to nearby street furniture and leave them overnight. They're a bloody nuisance, and they might hopefully learn a lesson.
Apart from holding up emergency services, all else is valid. (See below...)
Notwithstanding the fact that we've reduced our Co2 emissions by over 50% since 1990, they still complain about the UK. Meanwhile China continues to build new coal fired power stations and these hypocritical leftie morons never say a word about it. Why not, are they so brain dead that they imagine Chinese Co2 emissions get wrapped in neat little parcels and stored somewhere safe?
I hear about it. Why don't you?
They're not genuine. Merely another left wing platform to have a pop at the government. Still seething from the Tories wiping the floor with the left in 2019. But too cowardly to debate honestly and openly. All they do is hurl insults. Often personal and very nasty.
Sorry if that offends Chris, as I know your politics - but they offend me and millions of others, BIG TIME, and I'm sick to the back teeth of being told I can't say this and I can't say that, in case it "offends". Although it seems that "offence" is a one way street these days.
Sorry, but I don't take seriously insults that make accusations using - or implying - the "woke" word. It's the modern equivalent of "political correctnesss gone mad". Often right wingers whose main source of "news" is The Daily Mail (the UK equivalent of Fox News).
All offence is equal, but some offence is more equal than others, to take a twist on George Orwell.
It's a sobering thought, but many Brits are more offended by a few protestors gluing themselves to trains, than they are about thousands losing their homes (and many their lives) in floods in Bangladesh and Indonesia, and ditto many hundreds from fires in Australia and California and now all over Europe too. To be honest I don't give a damn about the supposed "millions" (your evidence?) who are offended by those who are trying to wake everybody up about what is happening to the planet. We just don't have the time to let ourselves be distracted by such irrelevant political concerns. What we've experienced the last week is not a freak event - we'd better start getting used to it.
9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
Take your pick from this search
Thanks. It seems absolutely clear from that that the protest group are not Extinction Rebellion, but a group I hadn't heard of called Insulate Britain (though I'm 100% in favour of what they want to achieve). Holding up ambulances would be most unfortunate, though I'm wondering how ambulances deal with ordinary tailbacks? They must have protocols to deal with it, as there many jams and eventual temporary closures on the M25 caused by breakdowns, accidents, or even a heavy commute.
22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
Probably someone's boot if they try and stop an ambulance again.
That sounds like a Daily Mail story. Do you have a source for such an event?
23 hours ago, 1949threepence said:
Not at the expense of poor people left with no gas or electric in the middle of Winter we don't - forget it.
I'm afraid those eco loons are in for a very bad time indeed if they start getting in everybody's way this Winter.
Yes, people on low incomes do need help. But so does the planet and we have no time to waste. Those 'eco loons' can see what's coming.
On 8/11/2022 at 10:21 AM, 1949threepence said:
At the moment though, there is absolutely no sign of the gulf stream weakening. If anything its gaining strength, as testified by the number of more intense Winter storms we get (eg, Storm Eunice 17.2.22).
During the incredibly mild Winter of 2015/16, the gulf strem was unremitting as one after another depression arrived, ensuring we were in a very mild South Westerly for probably 80% of the time from November to February - especially December and January. It was so mild that the cherry blossom was appearing in mid January - 2 months early.
But are you sure that's a result of the gulf stream, rather than climate change? If Europe experiences the same things we do, then the latter is almost certainly the cause IMO.
On 8/11/2022 at 9:47 PM, 1949threepence said:
As a consequence we've neglected existing sources of energy and somehow set up reducing our existing <1% Co2 emissions as a sort of global example, when anybody with an ounce of intellect can see that the big players like China don't give a tuppenny damn about climate change. Again - we can't move forward one jot as a planet until they take an interest and it's mind numbingly stupid to suggest or imply otherwise, talking of which I don't see ER demonstrating outside the Chinese embassy.
You're right, and yet we have to set an example even if the big players ignore us. And though we don't get to hear about it, I'm prepared to bet there are fires running out of control even there in China.
We could have been self sufficient, but have been well and truly caught with our pants down.
As for increasing bills, again it's blindingly obvious that probably more than half of households won't be able to afford the projected figures and will need a lot more help than £400 over 6 months. How we get round that via anything but a totally blunt approach which takes in the rich as well as the poor, I honestly don't know. We could offer credits in £100 blocks upwards to households who can provide evidence of hardship, but that would present an administrative nightmare, probably presided over by badly trained civil servants. Or maybe we could just say nobody gets cut off over the Winter months and we look at affordability for individuals next year, with a view to many bills being written off. Again an administrative nightmare and open to abuse.
It couldn't be a worse time for high inflation and a cost of living crisis. Otherwise people could just about swallow that energy accounts for a growing % of their income.
One thing that could be done is to maybe restrict to pre April 2022 rates, anybody who is on Universal Credit.
On 8/11/2022 at 1:27 PM, copper123 said:
Yes but many of these products are needed now and it will be hard to justify billing customers for future tech when they cannot afford their bills now let alone in six months time
It's virtually a Catch 22 - we need alternative energy now more than ever (urgently), yet the way energy supplies are structured there are so many people who can't afford to pay for it. It will take imagination on the part of government (which sadly so few of them have) to find radical new ways to supply and pay for our energy needs.
2 hours ago, blakeyboy said:
I think you're right- the gulf stream may well move or stop- compare the climate of the Isle of Lewis to Churchill, Canada.....same latitude.....
that's what we will lose....
The result of the Gulf Stream sinking further South does in fact mean we will lose its protection. However, you can't compare us with Canada - even without the GS the prevailing tendency will still be westerly winds off the Atlantic so though colder than now in winter, we'll still be milder than 'over there'.
However, measures to slow climate change right down are the best thing.
Let's just hope that this is a spur to quickening up the research into energy efficient alternatives - solar panels on roofs are slowly spreading but making them more efficient would be good, and they've only just begun to work out how to make wave energy work. Meantime, I hear Bill Gates is putting investment money into a modern, cleaner, more fuel efficient form of nuclear reactor whose advantage is that it can use the waste fuel from older reactors (whose design is appallingly out of date - 1950s in some cases). If Putin's warmongering hastens sustainable and efficient alternatives to energy, then that's one in the eye for him.
4 hours ago, secret santa said:
No, at least on Ebay you can see the progressive bidding but with LCA you're completely blind, submitting commission bids and hoping that a) you'll win and b) you won't have to pay your top bid.
So basically it's the equivalent of a postal auction?
proposed heating payments this winter
in Free for all
I think we'll have to leave it that your definition of 'open mind' and mine, are different. Can we leave it there?