‘Most climate scientists regard a rise of 2oC as the point when global warming could become irreversible
and the effects dangerous. 
At current rates, we are on track for a rise of more than 3-4oC by the end of the century.’ //

So it's PROVEN 2C is 
- irreversible ?
- dangerous ?

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/bbcs-climate-change-facts-are-fiction by Harry Wilkinson

Sep 22, 2018 at 11:58 AM | stewgreen

It depends on whether you trust Climate Scientists to produce anything that should be relied on. They cannot be relied on to confirm what and when the +2°C actually relates to, and they will not accept anyone questioning their temperature records anyway.

Possibly, but they also allow insurance premiums to be steadily increased.
Sep 22, 2018 at 12:35 PM | Stoic

The Insurance Industry may pay out after big storms and floods in the UK, but the TV publicity is a free advert to justify their increased premiums as a consequence and larger profits in subsequent years.

The Insurance Industry does have access to information on areas deemed liable to flood. It also has access to its own databases of areas that have flooded. It does not take an expert in probability to work out that they have a good idea about areas NOT deemed liable to flood, and areas that have no history of claims for flooding.

Premiums are based on Post Codes. The Insurance Industry is quite capable of profiting out of high-risk Post Codes, whether the risk is storm, flood, frozen pipes, subsidence, theft etc. They increase the Premiums until policy holders decide it is too expensive, and then the Insurance Industry has no liability at all.

Sep 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM | stewgreen

I too listened in disbelief as the lady went unchallenged by the interviewer.

“Were the lies about hurricanes being caused by climate change to open up job opportunities in that world of billionaire sponsored green activity?”

Possibly, but they also allow insurance premiums to be steadily increased.

Article 50 is quite clear:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

That is: we're out, in the case of an agreement on the date specified in it, or otherwise two years after notification if no agreement is in place by then, unless there is unanimous agreement for us to stay for a period (which could be indefinitely, as that is not precluded). There is no unilateral about it. There is a nice question as to whether we could even ask to stay without the backing of a full referendum, given that we had to fulfil constitutional requirements to give notice to withdraw (a Gina Miller court case now coming back to bite her?).

Incidentally, there is NO time limit on reaching a withdrawal agreement, and the EU remains obligated to reach one with us, even when we have already left.

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Note NO time deadline.

Sep 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM | stewgreen

But neither of those 2 examples can be accepted as a barometer of public opinion.

"South Today" the local BBC TV news here, has been covering the lack of new staff, especially Customs and Excise required to enforce Border Controls at Docks in Portsmouth and Southampton.

Will the number of Economic Migrants trying to smuggle their way in go up or down? Could Border Security Staff surpluses be redeployed?

Which goods will become so much more expensive in the UK that a market is created to finance smuggling? Drugs and Guns are already being smuggled in. Alcohol and tobacco? Their prices are fixed/rigged by taxes. Stolen cars, construction industry plant etc are already stolen in the UK and smuggled OUT, much of it ending up in Eastern Europe.

British fishing ports land fish, and fish/shellfish farms produce a huge surplus, that is exported, straight across the Channel. Will French Fishermen and Farmers obstuct truckers again, while the Gendarmes observe from a safe distance?