h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of the 243,000, 16,000 seem to be from Romania and Bulgaria. Less than 7% of the total net migration.

I don't suppose that many people emigrated from the UK to Bulgaria and Romania, but I doubt that those who did were going to cut cabbages for less than the national Bulgarian and Romanian minimum wage.

PP.

Ah, but blaming the Eastern Europeans and open borders is so much easier than looking at the overall picture

Mind you, given the way that the media distort the facts to sell papers, I'm surprised that we haven't seen those headlines

A good basic primer on CO2 and liquified carbon dioxide here.

http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html

The great advantage of liquified CO2 impoundment in oil wells is that unlike the water sometimes formerly used to increase pressure in oil wells, petrochemicals and CO2 are readily mutually soluable, and CO2 is more easily gasified in wells to force petroleum to the surface in older wells that have become so depleted of natural gas that petroleum remaining in the ground cannot be readily brought to the surface.

In the coking of coal, the traditional means of removing impurities that can interfere with the making of steel or contribute to acid rain is to heat it to red heat or higher and hold it at its equilibrium temperature actively pumping off the volatiles until they're exhausted.

Using liquified CO2 in the process accelerates the process on account of ready soluability of many of the impurities in liquified CO2.

Also, the liquid CO2 drastically decreases the chance of an accidental fire of a type that its usually not practical to put out.

The key to using the technique as a means of reducing CO2 emissions depends on promoting impoundment of factory effluent gases as a source of industrial CO2.




Meanwhile, on climate change, its been argued (by Isaac Asimov, among others) that it was the industrial revolution that brought an end to the Little Ice Age, a desirable effect, but that the trend bore watching.

~ WOW ~

What scientists say , except those funded by oil corporations, is that the climate change is taking huge steps because of the anthropogenic influence on it. The current climate change is not following any geological natural law.
Those steps are not positive, among others reasons because of the draughts that are affecting to Africa (one of the causes of inmigration that come in avalanches trying to jump the Melilla wall or getting to Italy, have you seen that? )

Desert is advancing. floods are happening where they did´nt or weren´t so wild.

In any case, it´s not reasonable to move to clean sources of energy?

Melilla. Ah, yes! Spain's Gibraltar....

PP.

scroll down to not miss the second picture. He has just been appointed archbishop in Valencia by the Pope.

http://www.publico.es/541458/la-capa-magna-del-arzobispo-canizares-causa-furor-en-twitter



the show business is missing a diva

SWL - Do you think it would be acceptabe for the government to appiont a political advisor who went on the record denying the causal link between smoking and lung cancer - even if they did not work in a field directly related to public health?

But that's not what we're talking about tucuxii. It's not about active CC deniers out spreading misinformation in influential ears. The woman's calling for a witch-hunt forcing people with no interest or expertise in CC to take the position she demands.

If someone is a foreign relations expert with a detailed knowledge of the internal politics of a foreign country which Britain has dealings with and their knowledge is useful to the UK, I couldn't care less if they believed in CC. Perhaps appointing people because of their direct expertise rather than their politically correct credentials would mean we avoid some of the monumental government screw-ups we see with depressing regularity.

But can you trust someone's direct expertise if they're also proven to not acknowledge scientifically proven facts?

And Einstein believed in a god. So what? The aggressively atheist movement would see people disbarred from influential positions because they believe in something scientifically unproveable. Is that a witch-hunt that should be tolerated?

There's a difference between scientifically unprovable (religion) and scientifically proved (climate change).

can we move onto a different story now please?

this is turning into a circular argument

"And Einstein believed in a god..."

Einstein didn't believe in a god. He occasionally referred to the concept of a god to make a point about science, such as 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'.

Space Whisky - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28973849

A potential Heinlein prize winner there.

OK - I think all we have learned from the "why shouldn't people who won't or can't grasp evidence based reasoned arguements play a role in running governments" thread is that swl should never ever under any circumstances be employed as a government advisor

I probably ought to be putting this in "Non Sequiturs".

Psychological truism:

If you can't cite an opposite for any given psychological process, and for that matter, more than one, you don't know diddley squat about the phenomenology.

The powers behind the Islamic State

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-powers-behind-the-islamic-state/

the script of that interview

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12278