badgerx16

That's the sort of 'new manager' syndrome that I hope continues for another few weeks at least

Consider that you have a funnel held over a bucket and into which you are pouring water. The water you are pouring in represents the rainfall on the hills and fells, the funnel is the streams and rivers draining down towards the sea, the funnel spout is the estuary, and the bucket is the sea. You can increase the amount of flow into the bucket by using a bigger bored spout, seemingly analagous to dredging the river mouth in your argument, but if you pour the water fast enough into the funnel, it will still overflow and wet your boots. The flooding in the lake District occurred because over 310mm, that is over 12 inches, of rain fell in one day onto already sodden hillsides, the equivalent of emptying a bath into the funnel in the analogy. As a result, the river Derwent increased it's level by over 8 feet. No river system in Cumbria could have coped with that, and no amount of dredging in Workington would have prevented it. .................................... What is missing from this list of 'purposes for dredging' ? ( Admittedly copied from Wiki ) Capital: dredging carried out to create a new harbour, berth or waterway, or to deepen existing facilities in order to allow larger ships access. Because capital works usually involve hard material or high-volume works, the work is usually done using a cutter suction dredge or large trailing suction hopper dredge, but for rock works drilling and blasting along with mechanical excavation may be used. Preparatory: work and excavation for future bridges, piers or docks/wharves, often connected with foundation work. Maintenance: dredging to deepen or maintain navigable waterways or channels which are threatened to become silted with the passage of time, due to sedimented sand and mud, possibly making them too shallow for navigation. This is often carried out with a trailing suction hopper dredge. Most dredging is for this purpose, and it may also be done to maintain the holding capacity of reservoirs or lakes. Land reclamation: dredging to mine sand, clay or rock from the seabed and using it to construct new land elsewhere. This is typically performed by a cutter-suction dredge or trailing suction hopper dredge. The material may also be used for flood or erosion control. Beach nourishment: mining sand offshore and placing on a beach to replace sand eroded by storms or wave action. This is done to enhance the recreational and protective function of the beaches, which can be eroded by human activity or by storms. This is typically performed by a cutter-suction dredge or trailing suction hopper dredge. Harvesting materials: dredging sediment for elements like gold or other valuable trace substances. Seabed mining: a possible future use, recovering natural metal ore nodules from the sea's abyssal plains. Construction materials: dredging sand and gravels from offshore licensed areas for use in construction industry, principally for use in concrete. Very specialist industry focused in NW Europe using specialized trailing suction hopper dredgers self discharging dry cargo ashore. Anti-eutrophication: Dredging is an expensive option for the remediation of eutrophied (or de-oxygenated) water bodies. However, as artificially elevated phosphorus levels in the sediment aggravate the eutrophication process, controlled sediment removal is occasionally the only option for the reclamation of still waters. Contaminant remediation: to reclaim areas affected by chemical spills, storm water surges (with urban runoff), and other soil contaminations. Disposal becomes a proportionally large factor in these operations. Removing trash and debris: often done in combination with maintenance dredging, this process removes non-natural matter from the bottoms of rivers and canals and harbors. Answer, improving inland drainage. Paradoxically, the increased level of sediment carried downstream by inland flood waters can actually necessitate additional dredging of estuaries as it increases the rate at which they silt up, affecting navigation and wildlife.

I can state quite categorically that you are most certainly not !

I think you have the right to challenge a valuation, but you need some evidence of your estimate. In our case their offer was quite a bit higher than I had worked out from the guides, so I kept schtum.

When my son wrote off my wife's 2 year-old car earlier this year the insurance paid up the current value on the basis that the outstanding finance was paid off directly and we got what was left. The other thing to watch out for is that a lot of insurance companies, even though they have declared the car a write-off, won't cancel the insurance policy, so they will keep on taking the money. ( In our case, we notified them that we wanted the policy cancelling and cancelled the direct debit. We then received a letter confirming the cancellation, plus a cheque refunding the overpayment. However, this was followed 2 weeks later by a letter saying that they had failed to collect the latest payment and were considering going through a recovery process to chase us for the money ! ) Shysters.

Basically it's a straight choice ; Option 1) All the major scientific institutions and universities in the world are colluding with the vast majority of governments, ( of all parts of the political spectrum ), to create huge quantities of fabricated or manipulated evidence which is then force fed to the public, with the willing co-operation of national and independant media organisations, with the intention of artificially controlling the world's fuel markets, and giving justification for additional taxes. In opposition to this conspiracy, those major corporations with huge vested interests in hydrocarbon fuels, whether gas, coal, or oil, are desperately fighting a valiant, selfless, and honourable rearguard action to expose this con and save the planet from political and social disaster. Option 2) Through mankinds wanton over-exploitation of the planet's natural resources, we are causing a shift in climate which exacerbates the natural cycle of heating and cooling which has gone on since life began, almost a billion years ago. The scientists and academics have evidenced this, have managed to persuade sceptical politicians that action is needed, and the fuel industries are fighting a desperate, self-interested, rearguard action against justified new processes which will have to be introduced, and as a consequence will hit their profits. Option 3) I don't know, and I don't care. I don't trust politicians, the media, or scientists, they are all in it for themselves, and any possible consequences will happen long after I am dead, so it won't affect me. I'm going to enjoy life to the full while I can. "Load up the SUV, let's go burn some rainforest".

I like the poll on the side bar of http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking/comments/page/2/#comments, the link St G has posted. It gives 2 choices 1) Yes, I am sure that climate change is most likely man made 2) No, climate change is mostly natural. This is interesting, because all those who accept MMCC/AGW would actually select the second option - it IS mostly natural, it's just the extra bit that we add on top that screws the planet. Also, try looking at this for an explanation of why the data was 'manipulated'. See G, the truth is out there, just open your eyes. http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington

St G, do you condone this, I'm sure you are aware of it ? Straight yes or no if you please. ( Following up on something I've just watched on telly )...... The American Council for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal industry companies opposed to a bill passing through Congress to control carbon emissions, hired a PR firm to lobby Congress members to oppose the bill, which was going to be a very close vote either way. This PR firm then hired another PR firm, ( plausible deniability ? ), which then forged letters to the Congress members hoping to convince them that the particular groups whose identities had been stolen had changed their minds and were now opposed to the legislation. The ACCCE found out that the fraud might be about to be exposed 2 days before the vote, but waited until after the vote had taken place, and the bill passed, before saying anything about it. Congress formed a committee to investigate this attempt to pervert the democratic process, and the ACCCE chairman lied on oath, ( allegedly ). There are many links on t'Interweb, here are a few... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/at-least-3-members-of-con_b_250588.html http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/clean-coal-exec-lies-under-oath-forgery-scandal.php http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0162#main_content http://enviroknow.com/tag/american-coalition-for-clean-coal-electricity/

As Tony Bliar was acting as Dubya's poodle, does anybody believe that a Tory PM in the same circumstances would have acted any differently ? The main drivers for the war were the CIA / MI6 'intelligence' that was supposed to prove Iraq's failure to comply with Resolution 1441, and as a consequence of the 'special relationship', ( a particularly one-way relationship it has to be said ), we were dragged in on the Yank's coat-tails. This was a war of Dubya's making, ( finishing off the job that Daddy failed to do 10 years earlier ), and a Tory PM would have been leant on to do exactly the same as Bliar.

"Sulaiman al-Fahim, who expressed disappointment at the decision, while informing the Guardian that he believed it had been mishandled. "I was not consulted over Paul's removal and feel unhappy that he is no longer with us,":D

He's still trying to work out the Maggie Thatcher conundrum George reminds me of the Happy Days episode where Fonzy tries to say the word 'wrong', and just can't manage it.

Only if Dubya stands next to him, and that will never happen.

Heard on the radio that the public are being invited to send in questions for the inquiry board to ask. Any good suggestions ? Could probably start with "Mr Blair, as a committed Christian; with so much blood on your hands, how do you sleep at night ?".

Yes, I agree that in 1978/79 it seemed that the left needed to be brought under control, but Mrs T went ( IMO ) too far in her hysterical crusade to re-order the country to her own design, ripping the heart out of industrial communities in South Wales, Clydeside, West Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North East. As a consequence, all our heavy industrial capacity has withered away. She also ruled the cabinet with a rod of iron, only paying attention to the sycophantic wing of her party; so what I would have done is moderate my actions by actually paying attention to some of the more experienced people around me and being less dogmatic. With hindsight she was an incredibly divisive figure, which can be evidenced by the vitriol with which many still refer to her, after 20 years out of politics. I am sorry, nobody will ever change my opinion of that witch.

I did at the time, being unemployed for 18 months, and I still do today. If it's the wrong medicine, yes I do; and her policies were taken to an extreme bordering on the jihad, which was unnecessary and almost fatal for the economy.

Winston Churchill first entered Paliament in 1900 as a Conservative, then in 1904 'crossed the floor' to become a Liberal. He remained a Liberal MP until the First World War, when he became part of a coalition government, only rejoining the Conservatives in 1925, having gained a seat as an independant in the 1924 election. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he returned Britain to the Gold Standard, something he later regarded as the biggest mistake of his life, and which almost certainly was the main precursor to the General Strike. In the 1930s, when the governments were again coalitions, ( all the way up to the fall of Chamberlain's cabinet in 1940 ), Churchill fell out completely with the Tory leadership over his total opposition to any form of independance for the colonies, particularly India. He also supported King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis, in direct opposition to the vast majority of Parliament. He did, however, come into his own a a wartime leader when he was invited to succeed Chamberlain, and lead yet another coalition government up to the end of the war in Europe, at which point his Tories were soundly whipped in the 1945 election. He did manage to actually become a Conservative PM in the early 1950's, but this term was nothing to write home about - domestic politics was still mired in austerity, and abroad the Empire was slowly dissolving, and Britain was nowhere near the world power WSC thought it still was. On the other hand, Maggie was damned lucky that General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, she won her second term on the back of that, despite a disasterous economic downturn. ( We won in the Falklands purely because of the quality of our fighting men; their equipment had been severely cut back with savage spending cuts under Maggie's stewardship. Sending men off to fight without the right gear, surely only the 'lefties' do that ? ) I would argue the 'greatest' Prime Minister of the 20th century was David Lloyd George.

Do you know ANYTHING about, for instance, the geography of the Newlands Valley or the area around Co©kermouth ? The flooding in Keswick is due to 370mm of rain falling on Robinson, Knott Rigg, Hindscarth, and Causey Pike, in one day. No amount of dredging in Workington will stop Keskadale Beck or Derwent Water from overflowing when hit with that volume of water, and it's miles inland from the flood plain. And the local Cllr should realise that, but then again it makes a good sound bite. From Keswick, the river Derwent flows north into Bassenthwaite, where it meets the runoff from Blencathra and Skiddaw, again several inches in one day, before flowing out into Co©kermouth. No building on flood plains to manage an immigrant population, no dredging, just a freak weather event. Unfortunately these 'freak' events will more and more become the norm as the climate models are proved true. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm; "They argue that without action there will be much larger changes in the coming decades, with the UK seeing higher food prices, ill health, more flooding and rising sea levels." )

It'll probably come to nothing, after all the Butler report said " that the intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons - described by Mr Blair as "detailed, extensive and authoritative" - had in fact been "sporadic and patchy", yet nothing seems to have happened about that.

This is what I use.

He won't !

St George's latest posting is from http://www.hyscience.com, who are world renowned impartial climate experts as can be seen from this, taken ( unedited and complete ) from their own "about us" page. Just put hyscience.com into GOOGLE; "The primary interests of Hyscience authors are Clinical Pharmacology, Medicine, the Middle East and international terrorism, and International News. Guest authors include highly experienced scientists and physicians with extensive medical-legal jurisprudence expertise and additionally, moderate Muslims with significant technical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the Middle East and Islam. " Well that's me convinced then.

She'd probably 'flip' her second home and claim ex's whilst inside !

Looks like 'commie' Obama is perpetuating the hoax http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375248.stm And before St G posts up this by the renowned climate expert Lord Lawson of Blaby, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece There is a counter to it here, http://www.leftfootforward.org/ Once again, feel free to read both and make up your own mind. If you choose the former, I promise there will be no name calling.

And while you're at it, Mrs Thatcher is still waiting for your explanation as to how she was wrong in 1989.

Which is exactly one of the points causing 'issue' in the hacked e-mails, how to interpret 18th century handwritten notes. The scientists trying to plot this data have to use extrapolation and 'best fit' at times, simply because the written record is occasionally unintelligible and otherwise there are holes in the dataset, all of which is entirely open and above board and subject to peer review scrutiny, but the deniers then accuse them of making things up.