Town full of Bangladeshis

[rudemedic]

The Census data from last year involving ethnicity has been released and Oldham has the 3rd highest Bangladeshi population as a % of the total population in the country and highest outside of London. The town is only beaten by the London Boroughs of Newham (home of West Ham) and Tower Hamlets (both homes of the Olympic Park).

 

For the full data see http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks201ew.xls

It will probably help if you are a bit of a population geek like me.

Edited December 11, 2012 by rudemedic

[beag_teeets]

Bangladesh must really be a :censored:hole if so many people from there are happy in Oldham.

[Matt]

Atheism on the rise.

 

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

Bangladesh must really be a :censored:hole if so many people from there are happy in Oldham.

 

Given a choice of life in a slum in Oldham or a slum in Bangladesh, i can see why some are keener on Oldham.

[jimsleftfoot]

Well I think it was in the 80s ? that there was a massive flood in Bangladesh which left 500k dead. My wife teaches lots of kids whose families were from there and they all talk about families members who were list to it.

[opinions4u]

Well I think it was in the 80s ? that there was a massive flood in Bangladesh which left 500k dead. My wife teaches lots of kids whose families were from there and they all talk about families members who were list to it.

 

1985 IIRC. But the floods are an annual event. Some more severe than others.

[leeslover]

1985 IIRC. But the floods are an annual event. Some more severe than others.

It’s, “meant,” to flood to some extent, otherwise growing rice is tricky, but it only has to get a bit wetter before it goes seriously wrong. Comparing the prospects of Holland vs Bangladesh in the event of global warming shows why moves which prevent economic growth in the world won’t help the poorest much.

[Monty Burns]

Shouldnt Holland already be a massive lake or inland sea by now?

[leeslover]

Shouldnt Holland already be a massive lake or inland sea by now?

A lot of it was sea not long since. Like a lot of East Anglia, it's above the water because it can afford to be.

[opinions4u]

A lot of it was sea not long since. Like a lot of East Anglia, it's above the water because it can afford to be.

 

It’s, “meant,” to flood to some extent, otherwise growing rice is tricky, but it only has to get a bit wetter before it goes seriously wrong. Comparing the prospects of Holland vs Bangladesh in the event of global warming shows why moves which prevent economic growth in the world won’t help the poorest much.

 

Global warming's a load of guff though.

 

But that's a whole different debate.

[leeslover]

Global warming's a load of guff though.

 

But that's a whole different debate.

I agree - but my my point is that even if it's 100% true enormously (really enormously) expensive programs to reduce CO2 by a little bit will condemn Bangladesh and others to still be poor rather than maybe rich enough to sort themselves out like the Dutch will 50 years down the track

[Matt]

100% of the peer reviewed scientific literature shows, plus about 97% of publishing climate scientists understand, that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic.

 

I doesn't matter if you think all this stacks up or not. The situation is that the planet is going through a warming phase, and we've forced the warming too. A draft of the report by 2,500 scientists said it is "very likely" (90% certain) that human activities were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years. The debate on mankind having an effect or not was declared over in scientific circles at this point. In case you're a climate change denier and want to point to the fact that 'very likely' means they aren't 100% sure, 'very likely' is defined by the report as "a 90-99 percent probability."

 

In other words, pretty damned sure.

 

Yes, there is global warming, yes mankind has forced warming on the planet, and yes - we have reason to suspect the will be untoward outcomes from it.

 

http://realclimate.org/

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[leeslover]

100% of the peer reviewed scientific literature shows, plus about 97% of publishing climate scientists understand, that the current warming is mostly anthropogenic.

 

I doesn't matter if you think all this stacks up or not. The situation is that the planet is going through a warming phase, and we've forced the warming too. A draft of the report by 2,500 scientists said it is "very likely" (90% certain) that human activities were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years. The debate on mankind having an effect or not was declared over in scientific circles at this point. In case you're a climate change denier and want to point to the fact that 'very likely' means they aren't 100% sure, 'very likely' is defined by the report as "a 90-99 percent probability."

 

In other words, pretty damned sure.

 

Yes, there is global warming, yes mankind has forced warming on the planet, and yes - we have reason to suspect the will be untoward outcomes from it.

 

http://realclimate.org/

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/

So what ya gonna do about it? At the moment we are moving ultra hi-tech efficient gas-fired heavy industry to inefficient brown coal-fired sites in Asia so that we meet our emissions targets, and keeping fossil fuel stations bubbling over at inefficient low levels so that we can fire them up at short notice to inefficient high levels when the wind drops. It's utter madness.

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

Climate change?, Sure. Man made? Not so sure.

 

A more recent leaked report.

 

http://www.guardian....t-leaked-online

 

And a rebuttal from the report leaker, Alec Rawls

 

http://joannenova.co...entific-method/

Edited December 18, 2012 by Scratch2000uk

[Matt]

Climate change?, Sure. Man made? Not so sure.

 

A more recent leaked report.

 

http://www.guardian....t-leaked-online

 

And a rebuttal from the report leaker, Alec Rawls

 

http://joannenova.co...entific-method/

 

 

Humans contributing to climate change is established science, the IPCC leaked draft indicates now 99% certain rather than the 2007 presentation which had it at around 97%. So again pretty damned certain.

 

As for Rawls blog post, it's a good case study for confirmation bias, incompetence, and misrepresenting sources. Delingpole did exactly the same.

 

Isn't Alec Rawls the Flight 93 obsessive, right wing crackpot and college dropout? This bloke : http://errortheory.blogspot.co.uk/

That's a - um - great blog.

[Matt]

So what ya gonna do about it? At the moment we are moving ultra hi-tech efficient gas-fired heavy industry to inefficient brown coal-fired sites in Asia so that we meet our emissions targets, and keeping fossil fuel stations bubbling over at inefficient low levels so that we can fire them up at short notice to inefficient high levels when the wind drops. It's utter madness.

 

What are any of us going to do about it?

[OldhamSheridan]

Buy an aircon and kick my heels as my house becomes a beachside property.

[jimsleftfoot]

The human race is adaptable, so I'm willing myself to grow fins!!

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

Humans contributing to climate change is established science, the IPCC leaked draft indicates now 99% certain rather than the 2007 presentation which had it at around 97%. So again pretty damned certain.

 

As for Rawls blog post, it's a good case study for confirmation bias, incompetence, and misrepresenting sources. Delingpole did exactly the same.

 

Isn't Alec Rawls the Flight 93 obsessive, right wing crackpot and college dropout? This bloke : http://errortheory.blogspot.co.uk/

That's a - um - great blog.

 

I'm not really interested in his politics or his blog, to be honest, I'm interested in his point of view.

 

i do believe humans are contributing to it , but at 99%? Hmmmm.

[Monty Burns]

Humans contributing to climate change is established science, the IPCC leaked draft indicates now 99% certain rather than the 2007 presentation which had it at around 97%. So again pretty damned certain.

 

 

 

The problem with scientists is that hardly anybody dares openly speak outside the majority. They used to be 99% certain that the earth was flat. Disagree and risk ridicule and even worse, funding cuts.

[opinions4u]

I distrust officialdom.

 

The establishment tells us things that turn out to be wrong. The establishment tells us things to control us. The establishment tells us things to justify taxing us more. 97% certain? 99% certain? Will it be 101% certain in a couple of years? Consensus is not proof. And, despite what the IPCC say, there is not scientific consensus. Or proof.

 

Climate scientists get their grants renewed if they say what the establishment wants them to say. £billions in grants.

 

Climate change happens naturally. The planet has been warmer than it is today. It's also been colder.

 

The case for saying mans' influence on it is significant is at best unproven. Despite the £billions spent.

 

I'm not a believer in dumping in my own back garden. We have a duty to treat the planet with care. But the amount of money being spent to say sea levels are 1/2 inch higher or average temperatures (taken in bigger, warmer cities) are 0.5 degrees higher than they were half a century ago seems a tad disproportionate to more pressing and urgent needs.

 

The debate should go on. There should still be research (although I challenge the need for quite so much to be spent on it). It would be interesting to see what the consensus was if 50% of the grants handed out were on the basis of "go an prove it doesn't exist". At the moment the vast majority of money is spent with a brief saying "go an prove it". Which nobody has managed to do.

 

More importantly, carbon credits are a complete con.

Edited December 19, 2012 by opinions4u

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

What are any of us going to do about it?

You can start by preparing yourself for significant fuel cost rises over the next decade or so, in April the carbon tax will be introduced at £16 per ton of emissions from electricity production that uses fossil fuels (half of our electricity) rising steadily to over £70, unless of course you're green enough or lucky enough to get your energy from wind farms or solar power.

 

Fact is, there is no viable solution, unless we go nuclear.

[jimsleftfoot]

You can start by preparing yourself for significant fuel cost rises over the next decade or so, in April the carbon tax will be introduced at £16 per ton of emissions from electricity production that uses fossil fuels (half of our electricity) rising steadily to over £70, unless of course you're green enough or lucky enough to get your energy from wind farms or solar power.

 

Fact is, there is no viable solution, unless we go nuclear.

 

There is the 'green deal' to invest in domestic solar power, which apparently has come down in price over the last few years (+ other renewables). If the carbon tax is going to push up prices of fossil fuel power, then it makes the green option more interesting.

[Guest Scratch2000uk]

There is the 'green deal' to invest in domestic solar power, which apparently has come down in price over the last few years (+ other renewables). If the carbon tax is going to push up prices of fossil fuel power, then it makes the green option more interesting.

That's the whole point of the carbon tax, to raise electricity prices so that greener alternatives look like a better deal, but who's getting shafted for it, the electricity companies? nope.

They have come down in price as the costs involved installing it outweighed the savings in fuel costs. The average cost of a complete solar home energy system, allowing independence from the electric grid, is about £13,000 as of January 2010.

Is that realistically affordable to the ordinary working folk of Oldham who were the worst paid town not so long ago and most of the work places are low-skilled and low-waged, Not to mention all the sunshine we get

[Matt]

I'm not really interested in his politics or his blog, to be honest, I'm interested in his point of view.

 

However, I am interested in that you consider his viewpoint.