Chomper Higgot

Well it is when the people who get to vote are so far removed from being representative of the population as a whole.

That’s not correct. The two candidates have already been selected by the Parliamentary Conservative Party. The Constituency Conservative Party Members will now select which candidate shall be PM.

No, she was the subject of a BBC Radio 4 program earlier this year. I certainly don’t need to Google the impact of her business on poverty in the UK.

Correct, but this isn’t a split between different parties, this is a split on fundamental fiscal policy between two candidates and their respective factions within the Tory Party.

Makes money from a vice.

Diametrically opposed on taxation is not a small matter.

Forgive my unconcise grammar, and let’s follow your earlier insistence of UK, not ‘most counties’. Who in the UK is taxed most of their salary?

The opposition is not the subject of discussion. Now do you deny the splits in the Tory party and that the two candidates sit either side of the significant split on fiscal policy?

Who’s ‘taxed most of their salary’?

Have you got any evidence that the public voted for damaging the economy with the Tory ‘Hard Brexit’? Where in the Tory Party Manifesto did they inform the electorate of their plans for £Billions of corruption and ineptitude?

And there you have it. The two candidates offer dramatically different policies that cannot both be squared with the divide in the Tory Party. Assuming of course the two candidates have any intention of keeping the easy promises they are making.

Only if you regard both as individually whole. I’m not quite sure they are.

And mismanagement by a corrupt Tory Government and a damaging Brexit.

As a general rule, people who can’t feed themselves are not putting money in ‘Private Pensions’. And anyway, higher income tax rates made savings in pensions more fiscally attractive.

Quit trolling. Labour is not the subject of this discussion.

This Government came to power promising green and sunny pastures. The reality is they have delivered poverty, a cost of living crisis, inflation, corruption and ineptitude. While entertaining the Tory leadership battle, is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs.

Johnson’s fans will take heart from the news that BBC R4 is this morning reporting 4000 Conservative Party Members are asking why Boris Johnson isn’t on the ballot. But it’s hardly good news for the Tories, 4000 of their membership doesn’t seem to know what’s been going on these past weeks and are yet another faction in the fractured Tory Party.

Which methodological flaws? There are tens of, if not not hundreds of, thousands of scientists around the world working for thousands of of different institutions on a wide range of climate science, each with its own focus, it’s own data and it’s own methodology. Oh I get it. It’s a coordinated conspiracy. All these scientists, all these institutions, all these projects, all these data sets, all these methodologies, all these peer reviews. They’re all in it together. But we’re’ saved, you’ve found a blog that reveals ‘the truth’.

Your use of pejorative terms to describe things you clearly do not understand is the only takeaway from that whole missive. There’s a reason why ‘Data Analysis’ is a mandatory subject for those engaged in scientific research.

If the temperature of a 1 meter cube of water is raised by 0.65C this equates to 650,Kjules. Which seems like a ‘bit of warming’. A cubic Km subjected to the same temperature rise requires, 650,000,000,000Kjules. And a cubic km is a tiny tiny drop on the oceans. You can repeat the same calculation for atmospheric temperature rises, surface water, land surface. It is the heat energy that drives climate change, and even small changes in temperature are evidence of gigantic changes in climatic heat energy, Don’t you just love thermodynamics, so much more reliable than ‘ dodgy blogs’.

I’m not afraid of anything, and I don’t need to base arguments I make on misinformation sites. If you want reliable and verifiable evidence you’ll find it in perfectly reliable and verifiable sources. It’s not difficult.

I doubt you can claim fakery that is very rightly removed won you any arguments.

That is not how global warming is presented. Even a cursory review of literature on the subject will reveal discussions and evidence of atmospheric temperature, ocean temperatures, permafrost temperatures, land and surface water temperatures, ice coverage at numerous locations across the globe, sea levels at numerous places across the globe, changes in precipitation, flooding, droughts and topically wild fires. Away with you and your simplistic strawman arguments.

It’s not unreasonable to expect a ‘former scientist working for the British Government’ to be able to express the basis of what’s making you wonder in at least a semblance of scientific terms.

Data processing is not ‘fixing data’. Away with you and your climate change denial blogs.