From the brink of the abyss
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:46:06 +0100, John Hall
wrote:

In article ,
Paul C writes:
By the last quarter of the 18th century there were estimated to be up
to 10,000 black people in London.

I'm always a little suspicious when people say "up to". Do you happen to
know what the best estimate of the number is?


See quoted source. Do you have an alternative source?

From the brink of the abyss
 

...... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 18, 10:29*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
..... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

Do you mean David Williams? Little Britain is crap and only exists
because of BBC ****s wanting the world to be thus-but it ain't .
Little Britain will be forgotten totally as time goes by. Why did that
****** change his name fro Williams to Walliams -what an arsehole.

Oh Mien Gott how the sheep- are lead to the slaughter

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 18, 5:21*pm, wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:44*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 18, 11:19*am, wrote:

On Oct 18, 8:58*am, Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:20*am, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Oct 16, 9:34 pm, (Gareth Slee) wrote:

wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com

...and that's a more reliable source than the BBC?

Yes Gareth, the same BBC that gave us is latest production of Oliver
Twist casting a black girl as Nancy. Ideology over reality every
time.
---------------------
It wouldn't occur to you that she might have been the best actress at the
audition would it? I saw it and thought she was a brilliant Nancy and
don't see what difference it makes. I don't recall the line in the novel
"Bill Sikes' girlfriend, the poor white girl, Nancy....."
Dave

No Dave it didn't occurr to me that she was the best actress for the
job, not in a million years. Taking your logic a step further, how
about Hugh Grant *playing the part of Nelson Mandella, *now that would
cause riots amongst the Guardinista's .

As for

*"I don't recall the line in the novel "Bill Sikes' girlfriend, the
poor white girl, Nancy"

Silly me *I forgot the novel *Winston Twista was set against the
backdrop of the Notting Hill Carnival..

You still seem to be confusing fictional characters with real ones. Just to
clarify the matter, Nelson Mandela is a real person who is black and Nancy
was a fictional character whose race was, as far as I know, not specified.
So why have you such a problem with Nancy not being played by a white
person?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simply this: The bbc are doing this all the time at every opportunity
they try and portray the world to suit their cringing self-loathing
view. *In these more enlightened days there would rightly be an outcry
to have a white actor play an obviously black character, but when the
other way round -and with the BBc this is happening increasingly , the
BBC (lefty white middle classes) feel thats acceptable as a price to
pay for Britains Colonial Past. *Personally I find it patronising and
at worst dangerous.

Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report *on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * Wrong newsgroup, Lawrence, as usual. * You could always join the
Fox News Appreciation Society if you want to be surrounded by like
minds.

Tudor Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Had a drink with Nicky last night, his dad's 90th. He reckons your
Trombone playing has improved exponentially.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know; I saw him tonite (sic) plucking his banjo, which he does
with some style. I don't think he's *ever* heard me play the trombone
because he does Trad and I do Big Band Swing and mainstream. He would
probably call my style rather poncy. His assessment is generous
though I can't imagine what it could be based on. Hearsay? The fact
that I often give him a lift home? You know, I think I'm going
bonkers.

Tudor Hughes (2nd trombone and chief section jazzer, the Derek Browne
Swing Band, blowing a 1971 Olds' Special with a Denis Wick 12 CS
mouthpiece and wearing varifocals).

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, wrote
On Oct 18, 10:29*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
..... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

Do you mean David Williams? Little Britain is crap and only exists
because of BBC ****s wanting the world to be thus-but it ain't .
Little Britain will be forgotten totally as time goes by. Why did that
****** change his name fro Williams to Walliams -what an arsehole.


I happen to agree with you about Little Britain. It's a pity because
Walliams is actually rather a good straight actor. He was required to
change his name because the actors' union Equity demands you have an
unique stage name, and there was already a David Williams.

Oh Mien Gott how the sheep- are lead to the slaughter

You'd be more effective, Lawrence, with a polyglot spillangranmachucker.


--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

From the brink of the abyss
 

In article ,
Paul C writes:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:46:06 +0100, John Hall
wrote:

In article ,
Paul C writes:
By the last quarter of the 18th century there were estimated to be up
to 10,000 black people in London.

I'm always a little suspicious when people say "up to". Do you happen to
know what the best estimate of the number is?


See quoted source. Do you have an alternative source?

I subsequently saw "5,000 to 10,000" quoted in your other post. I'm
happy with that. The phrase "up to" is often used as "weasel words", but
clearly not in this instance.
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

From the brink of the abyss
 

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.



Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines "New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. So something was definitely catching the
imagination at that time. Of course as there was no internet then it
would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 11:51*am, wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:





wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report *on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *So something was definitely catching the
Newspapers imagination at that time. Of course as there was no
internet then it
would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some newspapers have recently run stories about Global Warming having
stopped. That hasn't captured the scientists' or the public's
imagination and it isn't true, but they still run the stories.

It's odd that you are now choosing to back your argument with old
newspaper stories, when the thrust of what you have been saying in
this thread is "don't trust the media".

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 1:23 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:51 am, wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines "New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. So something was definitely catching the

Newspapers imagination at that time. Of course as there was no
internet then it

would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some newspapers have recently run stories about Global Warming having
stopped. That hasn't captured the scientists' or the public's
imagination and it isn't true, but they still run the stories.

It's odd that you are now choosing to back your argument with old
newspaper stories, when the thrust of what you have been saying in
this thread is "don't trust the media".

No not really at all. The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact the left
never had the slightest interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.

Now of course the TUC which was once a household term -everyone knew
what and who they were has now become virtually meaningless.

AS the great old dog died the flea like middle class left deserted and
found other hosts ie the media BBC in particular, local government in
fact in all levels of health, education, local government etc etc.
note though never in proper business only in parasitic state funded
enterprises.

Now you add into the mix undeniable warming that seems to be linked to
capitalistic western greed and 'Wahey the lads' a new rational ,
tangible religion has emerged that all Marxists middle classes can
feel comfortable with.

Now as I've said I'm not denying any warming , the original point of
my thread was why hasn't the BBC who pounce on any snippet of evidence
that reinforces AGW , never report facts/news to the contrary i.e the
regrowth of the Arctic ice?

Can you tell me why they haven't touched this story and why they
ignore the cooling and near record sea ice of Antarctica?

You see the BBC in particular believes we're are at the edge of the
abyss peering down into the terrible darkness, so you'd think any news
that delays impending disaster would be welcomed-yet its not. Odd
that.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On 19 Oct, 14:22, wrote:


Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *

[...]
The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact *the left
never had the slightest *interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.


In the 1970s? I don't think that's true. For example, John Mason
informed the Royal Society in 1978 that of all climate variables, the
effect of rapid increase in greenhouses gases was 'by far the
largest'; and the disparate strands of climate research through the
1970s (and indeed '60s) culminated in 1979 with the panel convened by
the U.S. National Research Council at Woods Hole under Jule Charney.
'We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to
be near 3 degrees C, with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5
degrees.' [Jule Charney, 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment' (1979)]

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

And I thought that the English actor Sophie Okonedo (fittingly, for
the part, born in London's East End) was excellent at portraying the
role of Nancy. Just how dark does a person's skin have to be to
disqualify them from Dickens? Moreover, considering Dickens, as far as
I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?

From the brink of the abyss
 

Definitely appears to be more ice in the Arctic this year compared to
last year.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=17&sy=2008

From the brink of the abyss
 

In article b41c77af-d93f-4d96-8f9c-
,
says...
I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?


Fagin was a jew, but he was a baddie...

--
Alan LeHun

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On 19 Oct, 14:22, wrote:



Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *

[...]

The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact *the left
never had the slightest *interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.

In the 1970s? I don't think that's true. For example, John Mason
informed the Royal Society in 1978 that of all climate variables, the
effect of rapid increase in greenhouses gases was 'by far the
largest'; and the disparate strands of climate research through the
1970s (and indeed '60s) culminated in 1979 with the panel convened by
the U.S. National Research Council at Woods Hole under Jule Charney.
'We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to
be near 3 degrees C, with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5
degrees.' [Jule Charney, 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment' (1979)]

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

And I thought that the English actor Sophie Okonedo (fittingly, for
the part, born in London's East End) was excellent at portraying the
role of Nancy. Just how dark does a person's skin have to be to
disqualify them from Dickens? Moreover, considering Dickens, as far as
I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:


Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.


The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On 19 Oct, 14:22, wrote:



Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *

[...]

The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact *the left
never had the slightest *interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.

In the 1970s? I don't think that's true. For example, John Mason
informed the Royal Society in 1978 that of all climate variables, the
effect of rapid increase in greenhouses gases was 'by far the
largest'; and the disparate strands of climate research through the
1970s (and indeed '60s) culminated in 1979 with the panel convened by
the U.S. National Research Council at Woods Hole under Jule Charney.
'We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to
be near 3 degrees C, with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5
degrees.' [Jule Charney, 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment' (1979)]

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

And I thought that the English actor Sophie Okonedo (fittingly, for
the part, born in London's East End) was excellent at portraying the
role of Nancy. Just how dark does a person's skin have to be to
disqualify them from Dickens? Moreover, considering Dickens, as far as
I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?

How does that explain the Subday Mirror and Sunday Telegaph artices
and Nigel Calders book?

The post war cooling was very obvious right through the sixties only
ten years earlier Einstein was writing a glowing preface to Charles
Hapgoods apparent destruction of the theory of plate tectonics. I
think people forget how things rapidly change, Cooling wasn't a theory
it actually was a concern that had veen picked up by a less distorted
media than today. Again people want to revise history to suit their
view of the world.

As for Dickens: Would you think it correct if a period drama had white
tribesmen amongst the Ibo people of west africa ? Of course not. TYhe
BBC are revising the accuracy of historic events to atone for the sins
of the slave trade. As I said in another post a young Blacl actress
iis to star in a new production of little dorrit.

Now these things on their own don't mean much but when put into the
context og the BBC guilt propaganda machine- it does.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 2:22*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:23 pm, Dawlish wrote:





On Oct 19, 11:51 am, wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:


You see the BBC in particular believes we're are at the edge of the
abyss peering down into the terrible darkness, so you'd think any news
that delays impending disaster would be welcomed-yet its not. Odd
that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you think the BBC believes we are on the edge of an abyss. OK to
think that, of course. Whether the executives at the Beeb actually
believe that is a different matter.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 5:56*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article b41c77af-d93f-4d96-8f9c-
,
says...

I know, did not mention her religion in 'Oliver Twist', should the
fact that she is Jewish also have excluded her from consideration?

Fagin was a jew, but he was a baddie...

--
Alan LeHun

Bill Sykes was far worse- you can't trust those Colombians.

From the brink of the abyss
 

wrote:
I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.
I'm not too sure if Alastair and Dawlish posted-they usualy do if the
ice news is grim; but if never ceases to amaze me how all those that
are concerned that we heading for melt down stay silent when the
disaster is postponed.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...till-climbing/

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.

I personally believe all of this data that global warming doesn't exist,
that Close encounters is a documentary, that the MFI destroyed the twin
towers, and that Diana was murdered by Interflora, I'm off to read some
more out of there stories in the Observer.

From the brink of the abyss
 

Now is it me or has warming in the UK been placed temporarily on hold?

I've been analysing the CET temperature series, and produced a revised
rolling 12 month annual temperature series, and the warming appears to
have been placed on hold since May 2007.

Links to graphs below.

Rolling 12 month CET series since 1970
http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/p...o/e68300ad.jpg

Rolling 12 month CET series since 2000
http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/p...o/e3942abe.jpg

PS, I think we will have a cold Christmas this year, particularly in
Northern Britain, what to others think?

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:
wrote:
I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.
I'm not too sure if *Alastair and Dawlish posted-they usualy do if the
ice news is grim; but if never ceases to amaze me how all those that
are concerned that we heading for melt down stay silent when the
disaster is postponed.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...w-287-higher-t...

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.

I personally believe all of this data that global warming doesn't exist,
that Close encounters is a documentary, that the MFI destroyed the twin
towers, and that Diana was murdered by Interflora, I'm off to read some
more out of there stories in the Observer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well start your own thread you tosser. I started trhis precisely
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the
can you ****.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 8:17*pm, Bonos Ego wrote:
Now is it me or has warming in the UK been placed temporarily on hold?

I've been analysing the CET temperature series, and produced a revised
rolling 12 month annual temperature series, and the warming appears to
have been placed on hold since May 2007.

Links to graphs below.

Rolling 12 month CET series since 1970http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp17/BonosEgo/e68300ad.jpg

Rolling 12 month CET series since 2000http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp17/BonosEgo/e3942abe.jpg

PS, I think we will have a cold Christmas this year, particularly in
Northern Britain, what to others think?

I agree.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:



Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? Cos that's how I remember it.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:21*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:

I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...w-287-higher-t....

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.


Felicitations and bonhomie aside, you are a caution! I started
trhiasaiosp[p[kajnn drrs precisely at this contumely denigration
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the...

can you turn what?

For clarity I have edited some of your post. Most of it is still
opaque, if not clearly transparent.

Perhaps we might look at the words of a minion in Minionopolis:
Richard.Black:

Highlighted text in body of PR for Nazi saluting chimp pictured in
link::

"A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded
there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human
activities."

More from the poster of Nazi saluters:

"The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said
trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural
processes alone".

It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as
well as at the Earth's surface."

By now the average Sun reader will have glazed over and started
surfing for porn.

Which is a pity as the article goes on to state:

"Holes in the data

But there are some big uncertainties which still need resolving.

Globally, the report concludes, tropospheric temperatures have risen
by 0.10 and 0.20C per decade since 1979, when satellite data became
generally available."

We are talking about tenths of a degree when the finest computations
don't give us reliable forecasts past a few days. Someone want to
explain that to them?

It gets worse:

"Measuring tropospheric temperatures is far from a simple business.

Satellites sense the "average" temperature of the air between
themselves and the Earth, largely blind to what is happening at
different altitudes.

To compound matters, instruments on board satellites degrade over
time, orbits subtly drift, and calibration between different
satellites may be poor.

Weather balloons (or radiosondes) take real-time measurements as they
ascend, but scientists can never assess instruments afterwards; they
are "fire-and-forget" equipment.

Correcting for all these potential sources of error is a sensitive and
time-consuming process."

Which, to be fair to Mr Black, is more or less what an honest man
would write about, given the quotes from experts he is relying on in
the article.

I'd like to hear just how much influence he had in the final draught
of this post that bears his name:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

Because I think that it was GOT AT.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind *of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? *Cos that's how I remember it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually reading your post again you are very clear that yes, a
cooling climate was very believable. I'm just getting irritated by
people who never experienced that period making such dissmisive
comments.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:21*pm, wrote:





On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:

I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...w-287-higher-t...

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.

Felicitations and bonhomie aside, you are a caution! I started
trhiasaiosp[p[kajnn drrs precisely at this contumely denigration
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the....

can you turn what?

For clarity I have edited some of your post. Most of it is still
opaque, if not clearly transparent.

Perhaps we might look at the words of a minion in Minionopolis:
Richard.Black:

Highlighted text in body of PR for Nazi saluting chimp pictured in
link::

"A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded
there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human
activities."

More from the poster of Nazi saluters:

"The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said
trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural
processes alone".

It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as
well as at the Earth's surface."

By now the average Sun reader will have glazed over and started
surfing for porn.

Which is a pity as the article goes on to state:

"Holes in the data

But there are some big uncertainties which still need resolving.

Globally, the report concludes, tropospheric temperatures have risen
by 0.10 and 0.20C per decade since 1979, when satellite data became
generally available."

We are talking about tenths of a degree when the finest computations
don't give us reliable forecasts past a few days. Someone want to
explain that to them?

It gets worse:

"Measuring tropospheric temperatures is far from a simple business.

Satellites sense the "average" temperature of the air between
themselves and the Earth, largely blind to what is happening at
different altitudes.

To compound matters, instruments on board satellites degrade over
time, orbits subtly drift, and calibration between different
satellites may be poor.

Weather balloons (or radiosondes) take real-time measurements as they
ascend, but scientists can never assess instruments afterwards; they
are "fire-and-forget" equipment.

Correcting for all these potential sources of error is a sensitive and
time-consuming process."

Which, to be fair to Mr Black, is more or less what an honest man
would write about, given the quotes from experts he is relying on in
the article.

I'd like to hear just how much influence he had in the final draught
of this post that bears his name:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

Because I think that it was GOT AT.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First thoughts are : why in the middle of that article is there an
image of GW Bush and his wife; with GW giving a nazi style salute-
surely there were thousands of other photographs in the BBC library
that could have been used totally out of context?

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:21*pm, wrote:





On Oct 19, 7:37*pm, "www.waspies.net" wrote:

I've noticed that al the 'usual suspects' the BBC, Guardian,
Independent and of course the son of a affluent professional marxist;
now whats his name ..ah yes the boy Ed Milliband and associates, are
all keeping very quiet about the remarkable recovery of the Arctic sea
ice.

The BBC are notorious for this but I digress the Arctic ice is
rebounding with seemingly,enthusiasm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...w-287-higher-t...

Just thought I'd make this point.

This could have been a good debate about data sources and the crap
information that exists in cyber space instead all we got was some tart
rattling on about the BBC, pointless and off topic.

Felicitations and bonhomie aside, you are a caution! I started
trhiasaiosp[p[kajnn drrs precisely at this contumely denigration
because of the BBC's lack of impartiality. It does what is says on the....

can you turn what?

For clarity I have edited some of your post. Most of it is still
opaque, if not clearly transparent.

Perhaps we might look at the words of a minion in Minionopolis:
Richard.Black:

Highlighted text in body of PR for Nazi saluting chimp pictured in
link::

"A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded
there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human
activities."

More from the poster of Nazi saluters:

"The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said
trends seen over the last 50 years "cannot be explained by natural
processes alone".

It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as
well as at the Earth's surface."

By now the average Sun reader will have glazed over and started
surfing for porn.

Which is a pity as the article goes on to state:

"Holes in the data

But there are some big uncertainties which still need resolving.

Globally, the report concludes, tropospheric temperatures have risen
by 0.10 and 0.20C per decade since 1979, when satellite data became
generally available."

We are talking about tenths of a degree when the finest computations
don't give us reliable forecasts past a few days. Someone want to
explain that to them?

It gets worse:

"Measuring tropospheric temperatures is far from a simple business.

Satellites sense the "average" temperature of the air between
themselves and the Earth, largely blind to what is happening at
different altitudes.

To compound matters, instruments on board satellites degrade over
time, orbits subtly drift, and calibration between different
satellites may be poor.

Weather balloons (or radiosondes) take real-time measurements as they
ascend, but scientists can never assess instruments afterwards; they
are "fire-and-forget" equipment.

Correcting for all these potential sources of error is a sensitive and
time-consuming process."

Which, to be fair to Mr Black, is more or less what an honest man
would write about, given the quotes from experts he is relying on in
the article.

I'd like to hear just how much influence he had in the final draught
of this post that bears his name:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

Because I think that it was GOT AT.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Coming from the champion of the obscure that is as usuall meaningless
tripe.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 20, 12:13*am, wrote:

Coming from the champion of the obscure that is as usuall meaningless
tripe.

On May 7 2006, 12:51 am, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:
Adam Lea wrote:
"Richard Orrell" wrote in message
roups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

I didn't think this was anything new:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...s-natural.html

Hells bells; it's been going on since Noah entered the ark. Time and
again climate changes affected the regions around Palestine
in biblical times. So what were you expecting?

Carbon dioxide that no longer dissolves in water?

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...cepticism.html

Which had this to say about editors:

"Anyway, another of Richard Black's articles was an investigation into
"censorship". Some time ago, he asked for any evidence to back up the
occasional claims that the reason why there is no sceptical science is
because it is censored by the gatekeepers of the peer-review system.

Apparently someone (several people?) had pointed him towards my
multiply-rejected paper "Can we believe in high climate sensitivity",
so he phoned me up for a chat about it.

As is clear from his article, I don't really see this as "censorship
of scepticism" so much as gatekeepers doing their usual thing of
defending the status quo.

In fact as I blogged at the time, a fair proportion of the reviewers
actually supported publication, it was the journal editors who seemed
to be the main obstacle."

The fact is that most people fail to realise that you don't just write
an article for the BBC the way you sit down and write a post to
Usenet.

In the first place you don't get to choose what you want to write; you
might sell a prospective outlook on a matter but then the offer might
come back for so many words on climate change.

In which case you savour a moral dilemma or work around it as best you
can.

What was so difficult for your admittedly dimmer light enhancer to
deal with in the flare of my earlier brilliance?

In the earlier post I sent, it was obvious to me that a measurement
error of tenths of a degree averaged over a decade is easily supplied
from the positioning of sensitive equipment, when just moving a few
steps over from the bus stop can get you 3 or more whole degrees C on
any sunny morning.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:47*pm, wrote:





On Oct 19, 6:34*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Oct 19, 5:31*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

Nor is the general point true that there was any sort of consensus on
'global cooling' during the 1970s. There is an excellent paper in
September's 'Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society' that
lays this argument to rest: 'The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus' [Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and
John Fleck]. In a nutshell, the authors found that of relevant papers
published from 1965 to 1979, 44 indicated 'warming' and just seven
'cooling', while 20 were 'neutral'.

The idea that winters in the UK could get colder persisted for some
time after 1979. *In the May 1987 edition of "Weather" is a letter
suggesting that cold winters in SE England were now the norm after the
cold of 1985,6 and 7. There are thoughts along these lines elsewhere
in that issue too. *It seems to illustrate the point that long-term
predictions are often excessively influenced by recent events, an all-
too-human reaction. *There have been few seriously cold spells of any
length in SE England since 1987. *February 1991 had a very cold spell
but it didn't last long.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Blimey Tudor is that some kind *of long winded convoluted agreement,
that yes there was some anxiety that our world was going to get
colder.? *Cos that's how I remember it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually reading your post again you are very clear that yes, a
cooling climate was very believable. I'm just getting irritated by
people who never experienced that period making such dissmisive
comments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point of the post was not to say whether cold winters were
believable or not but that forecasts were sometimes made with too
great an emphasis on the very recent past. Thus a cooling climate
was believable on that flimsy basis but the winters of the last 20
years have shown it to be a false belief, based too much on recent
memory. If contributors to "Weather" can make that kind of mistake
you should hardly be surprised that the media, including the BBC, can
have an irrational view of the subject.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

From the brink of the abyss
 

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 19, 6:45*pm, wrote:


How does that explain the Subday Mirror and Sunday Telegaph artices
and Nigel Calders book?

The post war cooling was very obvious right through the sixties only
ten years earlier Einstein was writing a glowing preface to Charles
Hapgoods apparent destruction of the theory of plate tectonics. I
think people forget how things rapidly change, Cooling wasn't a theory
it actually was a concern that had veen picked up by a less distorted
media than today. Again people want to revise history to suit their
view of the world.

Who is revising history? I have cited a scholarly article from the
Bulletin of the AMS which clearly shows the greater ('warming')
consensus amongst those publishing papers on the subject of climate
change.

Post-war cooling was indeed obvious, and perhaps that is why the
Mirror and Telegraph picked up on the relatively few instances of
predictions of cooling over a far longer period. But who knows? How do
you explain the Express these days publishing the 'long-range
forecasts' that they do? The press will do do as it pleases, and
perhaps that is where one needs to look for revisionism.

As for Dickens: Would you think it correct if a period drama had white
tribesmen amongst the Ibo people of west africa ? Of course not. TYhe
BBC are revising the accuracy of historic events to atone for the sins
of the slave trade. *As I said in another post a young Blacl actress
iis to star in a new production of little dorrit.


I think it has been pointed out before, but Oliver Twist and Little
Dorrit are not 'historical events'. And your analogy is doubly false:
Sophie Okenedo is English; white people depicting the Ibo would not be
Ibo. But was it ever a problem for all those white guys down the years
to portray Othello?

Did you know, by the way, that the majority population in Limehouse
(where Oliver Twist was set) was black at that time? And again: where
is the cut-off for skin tone where one is allowed to appear in a
dramatisation of Dickens? The BBC's Oliver Twist was an interpretation
of a novel, and therefore exhibited dramatic license at worst. The dog
was the wrong breed, I think - was that a problem?

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 20, 12:13*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:45*pm, wrote:



How does that explain the Subday Mirror and Sunday Telegaph artices
and Nigel Calders book?

The post war cooling was very obvious right through the sixties only
ten years earlier Einstein was writing a glowing preface to Charles
Hapgoods apparent destruction of the theory of plate tectonics. I
think people forget how things rapidly change, Cooling wasn't a theory
it actually was a concern that had veen picked up by a less distorted
media than today. Again people want to revise history to suit their
view of the world.

Who is revising history? I have cited a scholarly article from the
Bulletin of the AMS which clearly shows the greater ('warming')
consensus amongst those publishing papers on the subject of climate
change.

Post-war cooling was indeed obvious, and perhaps that is why the
Mirror and Telegraph picked up on the relatively few instances of
predictions of cooling over a far longer period. But who knows? How do
you explain the Express these days publishing the 'long-range
forecasts' that they do? The press will do do as it pleases, and
perhaps that is where one needs to look for revisionism.



As for Dickens: Would you think it correct if a period drama had white
tribesmen amongst the Ibo people of west africa ? Of course not. TYhe
BBC are revising the accuracy of historic events to atone for the sins
of the slave trade. *As I said in another post a young Blacl actress
iis to star in a new production of little dorrit.

I think it has been pointed out before, but Oliver Twist and Little
Dorrit are not 'historical events'. And your analogy is doubly false:
Sophie Okenedo is English; white people depicting the Ibo would not be
Ibo. But was it ever a problem for all those white guys down the years
to portray Othello?

Did you know, by the way, that the majority population in Limehouse
(where Oliver Twist was set) was black at that time? *And again: where
is the cut-off for skin tone where one is allowed to appear in a
dramatisation of Dickens? The BBC's Oliver Twist was an interpretation
of a novel, and therefore exhibited dramatic license at worst. The dog
was the wrong breed, I think - was that a problem?

Hmmm i think this is an interesting observation from several years
ago; of course it was from a well known racialist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/se...aceandreligion

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 20, 11:47*am, Graham P Davis wrote:


There were a couple of ice-age panics in the media. One in the sixties was
triggered by the Met Office long-range-forecasting group and was based on
100-year cycles. What it was forecasting was another Little Ice Age for the
UK but the media blew it up out of all proportion - basically losing
the "little" - as usual. However, by the end of the sixties, a new study by
one of the group broke the analysis into seasons and this showed that the
winters had reached their minimum in the sixties and would get warmer for
the next fifty years. It also showed springs and autumns would get colder..

The other ice-age theory was, as far as I remember, connected with global
cooling due to pollution particles. No account had been taken of increasing
CO2 and the scientist(s?) responsible for the theory soon realised the CO2
effect would swamp any cooling caused by pollution.



Thanks for this clarification.

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 20, 12:13*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:45*pm, wrote:



How does that explain the Subday Mirror and Sunday Telegaph artices
and Nigel Calders book?

The post war cooling was very obvious right through the sixties only
ten years earlier Einstein was writing a glowing preface to Charles
Hapgoods apparent destruction of the theory of plate tectonics. I
think people forget how things rapidly change, Cooling wasn't a theory
it actually was a concern that had veen picked up by a less distorted
media than today. Again people want to revise history to suit their
view of the world.

Who is revising history? I have cited a scholarly article from the
Bulletin of the AMS which clearly shows the greater ('warming')
consensus amongst those publishing papers on the subject of climate
change.

Post-war cooling was indeed obvious, and perhaps that is why the
Mirror and Telegraph picked up on the relatively few instances of
predictions of cooling over a far longer period. But who knows? How do
you explain the Express these days publishing the 'long-range
forecasts' that they do? The press will do do as it pleases, and
perhaps that is where one needs to look for revisionism.



As for Dickens: Would you think it correct if a period drama had white
tribesmen amongst the Ibo people of west africa ? Of course not. TYhe
BBC are revising the accuracy of historic events to atone for the sins
of the slave trade. *As I said in another post a young Blacl actress
iis to star in a new production of little dorrit.

I think it has been pointed out before, but Oliver Twist and Little
Dorrit are not 'historical events'. And your analogy is doubly false:
Sophie Okenedo is English; white people depicting the Ibo would not be
Ibo. But was it ever a problem for all those white guys down the years
to portray Othello?

Did you know, by the way, that the majority population in Limehouse
(where Oliver Twist was set) was black at that time? *And again: where
is the cut-off for skin tone where one is allowed to appear in a
dramatisation of Dickens? The BBC's Oliver Twist was an interpretation
of a novel, and therefore exhibited dramatic license at worst. The dog
was the wrong breed, I think - was that a problem?

By the way Othello was a Moor not sub saharan Africa and the reason
that he was bever betrayed by a black person was simply this: the
numbers and the low standing in society ; precisely the same as the
non revised 19th century.. You'll next be telling me Cleopatra was
black.

I'm making an historical socially valid point here, you liberals can't
have your cake and eat it. Either black people were a very isolated
minority gruop in Dickensian London or they were not. If the answer is
the latter and that black people had a high profile and public
standing in 19th century England how does that rest with the middle
20th century intolerance to West Indian immigration. We all know that
was an unpleasant time for West Indians in fact integration and social
acceptabilty are still a long way off now let alone during the time of
Dickens.

From the brink of the abyss
 

In article 7747d8eb-e9af-401c-981d-32210ea77d29
@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
Did you know, by the way, that the majority population in Limehouse
(where Oliver Twist was set) was black at that time?


Chinese, Shirley!!!

There certainly was a Black presence in Limehouse early 19thC (indeed a
"from everywhere" presence") but I can't believe it would be bigger than
that of the Chinese.

Limehouse was the main port in Europe for the Chinese and Far East trade
routes.

--
Alan LeHun

From the brink of the abyss
 

On Oct 20, 2:42*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 7747d8eb-e9af-401c-981d-32210ea77d29
@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

Did you know, by the way, that the majority population in Limehouse
(where Oliver Twist was set) was black at that time?

Chinese, Shirley!!!

There certainly was a Black presence in Limehouse early 19thC (indeed a
"from everywhere" presence") but I can't believe it would be bigger than
that of the Chinese.

Limehouse was the main port in Europe for the Chinese and Far East trade
routes.

--
Alan LeHun

Don't call me surely. On the info I've had a brief glance at it would
seem as slavery was usurped by industrialisation and the demand for
free labour then the black popualation of London diminished, there was
a asmall community around the dockland area but they were obviously
very isolated. Don't forget slavery was just being phased out, and we
also musn't forget the wretched living conditions for many no matter
what colour.