Higher gas prices as Brexit is confirmed

[GerryT]

What has Britain issuing licences got anything to do with was being discussed? I suggest you learn where Jersey is cause it isn't part of Britain or the U.K. And Gerry's statement about the U.K. issuing licenses shows his geography isn't up to speed either.
I don't need to keep up with current affairs with you two, an understanding of geography does it every time 😂 😂

Well you need to tell Jersey Govt about that, it sees Jersey very much under the wing of the UK, unless all your interested in is picking hairs.
https://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/JerseyWorld/pages/relationshipeuanduk.aspx
Jersey has a considerable measure of autonomy within its constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom (UK) although it is not independent of the UK....In practice, responsibility for the Island's international representation rests largely with the UK government.

But what your point does draw attention to is the fact the UK leaving the EU the people of Jersey had no say, as they had no vote. Once UK voted to leave Jersey was out. Only people that had lived in the UK in the previous 15yrs in Jersey had a vote. So while Jersey is not part of the UK it sort of is at the same time.

The row about Lisc had to do with the French fishermen that were blocked from fishing in jersey waters, that would be the Jersey that's not part of the UK but Johnson decided to send out two gunboats to not protect the non UK fishing waters of Jersey, nothing to do with the UK as you would say. 

While the UK quoted issuing 98% that was to avoid the core of the French issue as the 98% related to all of the UK fishing waters. France was concerned with a small number of fishermen, about 50, which France was prepared to take serious action to look after their interests, it's a pity the UK didn't do likewise for it's fishermen.

[GerryT]

Care to show where the U.K. issued more licenses?

The French just detained a U.K. fishing vessel out of shear petulance. The EU said nothing.

I don't think France need much reason to take action against the UK at the moment. But the action they talked about was within the rules, rigerous testing at customs posts going to the UK. Macron as has been said is fighting an election and taking a stance will win him votes from certain areas but he does need to be careful as a too hard a stance could cost him votes. That being said, an illegal fishing vessel will be stopped no matter what way you see it, call it petulance, most wouldn't.
Why would the EU comment on an illegal fishing vessel

[srb7677]

And you came back with the same stock answer I cited.

Nobody denies climate change,I asked you is it possible the science could change again and you came back with no answer but a lot of insults.

Well done Steve.

Of course the science can change, by the way. But it does so when scientists publish peer reviewed science backed by solid data. That it hasn't done so yet and almost all the data backs up the current thinking - or the "bloody rubbish"  as you call it -  itself tends to be highly suggestive as to where the evidence currently stands. To counter that inevitably involves falling back on some sort of conspiracy theory to explain the stance of scientists.

But if the science does change on this issue it will be the result of peer reviewed evidence presented by fellow scientists after years of research. It will not change because a few bods on a politics forum with little in the way of science credentials at all, prefer not to believe it, citing as evidence dubious stuff on the internet found via google.

I repeat, if the science changes it will be as the result of new evidence found by scientists. Until or unless that happens, the rest of us would be wise to recognise that the scientists probably know more about the science than we do, and follow the scientists. If and when it changes, then we can take that on board.

[srb7677]

The main difference was that for the last couple of decades, organisations such as NASA were being wound down, so were for hire to send rockets of to find evidence of whatever bloody rubbish was fashionable.

And there it is. The conspiracy theory. Lol

You are aware that most of the world's top scientists do not work for NASA?

[Borchester]

And you came back with the same stock answer I cited.

Nobody denies climate change,I asked you is it possible the science could change again and you came back with no answer but a lot of insults.

Well done Steve.

Dr Liu, who is head of the Climate Research department at Madison University and where most of the information comes from that appear in the Oxbridge research papers, once

(a) published a paper suggesting that the Earth was warming up and another that it was cooling down

(b) pissed himself laughing.

Liu is a big man in his field, but even he seems to have realised that CLIMATE CHANGE IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER AND HUMOUR IS NOT ALLOWED, but he has not done anything like that since.

[Borchester]

They had relatively little data back then and there were far fewer satellites up there taking measurements. They have much more data now.

Not really.

The main difference was that for the last couple of decades, organisations such as NASA were being wound down, so were for hire to send rockets of to find evidence of whatever bloody rubbish was fashionable.And no one was launching satellites to prove that everything was fine and dandy and that a bit of sunshine would do us all the world of good. Things calmed down a bit when Trump became President. He wanted the space agencies to actually explore space rather than drum up a few column inches in The New Hysteric. But no one ever got extra funding for their department or improved their promotion prospects by saying that everything was ok.

There is plenty of information available. All that needs to be done is to work through it. If we could find out if the world is heating up or cooling down or turning into green cheese, then that would all be to the good. Research is never wasted. We might not find the answers, but will certainly end up with some good questions. But I don't see any sign of that happening anytime soon

[cromwell]

They had relatively little data back then and there were far fewer satellites up there taking measurements. They have much more data now.

We might well have been due for an ice age, but that was always little more than conjecture. Global warming would have put paid to that though.

The vast majority of scientists and most other people of importance have looked at the data and the evidence and concluded that man made climate change is a reality.

Yet you are one of the denialists around here who think you know more than them, backed only by some dubious data from a few mavericks, some of them in the pay of the worst emitters. that you find on the internet which is actually full of fake science. The reality of man made climate change is no more a religion than the reality of the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics, until or unless something which works better comes along.. Let those scientists who have any doubts for whatever reason find the evidence and convince their peers. The rest of us lack the knowledge to challenge the scientific consensus and are idiots for trying. If it is wrong it will take scientists, not a few nobodies on an obscure politics forum, producing the data to prove that. Clearly they have not done so yet because scientists tend to follow the evidence and the vast majority believe the world is heating up and have the measurements to prove it.. Or do you imagine they are all involved in a massive conspiracy for some reason?

You lot choosing to deny the growing evidence, seeking out as back up some shite you have looked for on the internet hardly stands up against peer revieed scientific papers basede upon years of measuring and recording the evidence.

What are your credentials in this? On what basis do you assume to know more than the vast majority of the world's scientists? Finding a few selective things on the internet via google doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid.

My money is on denialists such as yourself being remembered as idiots by future generations.

And you came back with the same stock answer I cited.

Nobody denies climate change,I asked you is it possible the science could change again and you came back with no answer but a lot of insults.

Well done Steve.

[papasmurf]

My money is on denialists such as yourself being remembered as idiots by future generations.

Quite. People seem to have missed this:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-59176497


COP26: Former sceptic apologises for role in Climategate

Published5 days ago

A former climate change sceptic has told the BBC he wants to apologise for his role in the "Climategate" scandal.
Thousands of documents and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, shortly before a UN conference in 2009.
Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.
Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

US-based Mr Mosher, a key figure in the scandal, and other climate change sceptics were sent thousands of emails, documents and scientific data stolen from the CRU, which is based in Norwich.

He selected emails he thought would be most damaging, and these were then promoted on climate sceptics' blogs.

It called into question the work of leading climatologist Prof Phil Jones and climate modeller Prof Tim Osborn, who were vilified in some sections of the media and subjected to a series of inquiries.

Speaking to BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera for The Hack That Changed the World podcast, Mr Mosher said: "If I get to make an apology, even if it's remotely via BBC, to Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, then I'm happy."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct.
"In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.

[srb7677]

Science denialists?  You mean they have looked at conflicting data whilst others accept climate change is as described.
Thing is Steve back in the 70's scientists were telling us that we would be soon entering a new ice age.......a long way from global warming.

The stock answer is "Ahh well science has moved on from then and now it surely is going to heat up"
Any reason you can think based on that science can't move on again and find nothing of the kind?

I mean that would make the apostates correct bit of an uncomfortable prospect for the new religion don't you think?

Its not as if people deny the climate changes at all.

They had relatively little data back then and there were far fewer satellites up there taking measurements. They have much more data now.

We might well have been due for an ice age, but that was always little more than conjecture. Global warming would have put paid to that though.

The vast majority of scientists and most other people of importance have looked at the data and the evidence and concluded that man made climate change is a reality.

Yet you are one of the denialists around here who think you know more than them, backed only by some dubious data from a few mavericks, some of them in the pay of the worst emitters. that you find on the internet which is actually full of fake science. The reality of man made climate change is no more a religion than the reality of the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics, until or unless something which works better comes along.. Let those scientists who have any doubts for whatever reason find the evidence and convince their peers. The rest of us lack the knowledge to challenge the scientific consensus and are idiots for trying. If it is wrong it will take scientists, not a few nobodies on an obscure politics forum, producing the data to prove that. Clearly they have not done so yet because scientists tend to follow the evidence and the vast majority believe the world is heating up and have the measurements to prove it.. Or do you imagine they are all involved in a massive conspiracy for some reason?

You lot choosing to deny the growing evidence, seeking out as back up some shite you have looked for on the internet hardly stands up against peer revieed scientific papers basede upon years of measuring and recording the evidence.

What are your credentials in this? On what basis do you assume to know more than the vast majority of the world's scientists? Finding a few selective things on the internet via google doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid.

My money is on denialists such as yourself being remembered as idiots by future generations. 

[papasmurf]

Be fair he is up to date but has been rather busy schooling you on
Off licences
Hgv drivers
Cornwalls viable fishing industry
Supermarkets well stocked

Cromwell those who appear to be very ill informed ridicule and abuse me precisely because they are ill informed.
It is a factor it why people vote Tory, they are ill informed.

[Nick]

I know where Jersey is and they have now issued the majority of licences applied for. (If you kept up to speed with current affairs you would know that. )

They issued an additional 49 licenses after the spat with France. WOW!! 🤩 a whole 49.
I know where Jersey is and they certainly aren't in the U.K. or Britain as you postulate.
Why will you never just turn round and say you got it wrong?

[cromwell]

I find this forum to be a hotbed of conspiracy theorists and science denialists, but your posts at least are intellectually stimulating from time to time.

Science denialists?  You mean they have looked at conflicting data whilst others accept climate change is as described.
Thing is Steve back in the 70's scientists were telling us that we would be soon entering a new ice age.......a long way from global warming.

The stock answer is "Ahh well science has moved on from then and now it surely is going to heat up"
Any reason you can think based on that science can't move on again and find nothing of the kind?

I mean that would make the apostates correct bit of an uncomfortable prospect for the new religion don't you think?

Its not as if people deny the climate changes at all.

[srb7677]

So what sort of stuff is unavailable? Is it just from abroad? Is it home grown? Just what is missing?

It tends to vary. For a long time we had barely any supplies of flavoured water but that seems to be in stock again now. Energy drinks disappeared for a while. Currently there seems to be a total lack of small packets of crisps typically sold as part of meal deals. Certain brands of tea or coffee have been out of stock for a week or two. And pet food shortages have been frequent and are ongoing. Almost every day on checkouts we get several different people enquiring about this or that item they used to buy but havent seen for weeks. Occasionally that is because it has been discontinued, but often it is simply due to some form of inability to get a delivery of it.

How much of it actually comes from abroad, whether from the EU or outside it, I don't know. And how much of the problem is due to delivery issues re the shortage of drivers I know not. Certainly the prolonged shortage of carbonated flavoured water seemed to coincide with the news item about factories which produced the carbon dioxide necessary being closed due to high gas prices. So a number of issues might be feeding into the problems, and perhaps mutually interacting in complex ways which make it all worse.

[T00ts]

As someone who works in one, this last contention is a bit fragile. Recent months have seen numerous shortages of many things, which tend to be hidden by filling what would be the empty spaces with more of what we do have. Customers therefore tend not to notice unless they are looking for something specific which has been unavailable for week after week.

So what sort of stuff is unavailable? Is it just from abroad? Is it home grown? Just what is missing?

[srb7677]

Supermarkets well stocked

As someone who works in one, this last contention is a bit fragile. Recent months have seen numerous shortages of many things, which tend to be hidden by filling what would be the empty spaces with more of what we do have. Customers therefore tend not to notice unless they are looking for something specific which has been unavailable for week after week.