Best Of

Bit rum of Nigel just to say 'dunno' when asked about the medical safety of paracetamol. Do we take from this that his government will simply refuse to offer health advice when in office? How will that work if we have another Covid-like crisis?

Farage also took a rather selective refuge behind the (obviously true) point that there is no such thing as absolutely settled science - the Popper point to deal with Hume's celebrated objections to the finality of science and the nature of causation - that to qualify as science all its findings have to be eternally falsifiable.

OTOH there is nothing specially terrible about a non scientist like Farage claiming not to have scientific knowledge.

He's not so reticent to give his opinion of climate science.

Fair point.

Worth noting however that the two subjects are different in kind. The paracetamol/autism question is (relatively) discrete and simple - is there a relevant statistical link between single action X and single outcome Y. Similar to smoking and lung cancer. It is in principle testable and answerable (subject to the usual Popperian qualifications, if like me you are a Popper fan).

'Climate change' is no such thing. As a subject all manner of individual bits and pieces are testable, but the totality is only testable by waiting and seeing, which is little use; and the sheer complexity of the data and the future unknowns mean that as a whole it is not irrational to be doubtful about the reliability of the enterprise.

There is (IMO) a tendency for the climate change 'camp' to have no interest in any counter evidence, and the climate sceptic 'camp' to have no interest in counter evidence either. This trend characterises religion rather than science.

It is obvious to the meanest intellect that there are gigantic commercial, academic and political interests behind both 'camps', obvious also that to many powerful interests it is not helpful for there to be a healthy and reasoned debate.

The climate science is a hoax side state easily disproven things, such as that "burning fossil fuels isn't responsible for increasing levels of carbon dioxide because volcanoes", as fact, so that you can't take seriously their participation in any sort of debate on the science.

Within climate science there are, of course, vigorous debates on the large number of uncertainties that are present. Those uncertainties don't involve things like, "is the warning due to fossil fuel burning?" That simply isn't an interesting question for scientists to look at anymore, because there's nothing new to discover.

If there were some evidence to disprove the entire edifice of climate science then that would be a massive discovery for a young scientist, and science creates strong incentives for young scientists to make such breakthroughs. But there's no such evidence.

Accusing climate scientists of being religious about their scientific practice, because they don't take seriously people trying to debate things akin to "is the Earth flat?" is incredibly ignorant and insulting.

Anyway, Trump is busy wrecking all attempts to monitor the climate, wanting to deorbit US earth observation satellites, so we'll soon be in blissful ignorance of how bad it gets.

I'm going to bite on this. I think no-one of any scientific understanding disputes that our burning of fossil fuels has led to changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus in all probability to the increases in global temperatures that are observed. There are however some very significant challenges to the science and there has been some extremely bad science used to make the case for action. I think most climate scientists are honest, upfront people, but sadly some have been shown to be bad actors. Climategate was an eye-opener in some ways, and not in others. I suspect most of us would rather not have our entire email history thrown out over the internet for everyone to pick over.

However it is the case that some people have been bad actors in this. Michael Mann is someone I have little time for. He rose to prominence with the publication of very long temperature studies using a variety of different tools, but mainly tree ring data. That data has repeatedly been shown to be flawed and poor techniques and statistical practice has been used. When errors have been shown by critics, rather than accept this, he has doubled down, including in the case of a date set included upside down. Serious scientists will always accept criticism and acknowledge mistakes, painful though they can be. And then you have the fight against malicious peer review - reviewers blocking publication based on in running counter to the narrative.

To be clear fossil fuel leads to more COs which leads to increased warmth. Where the great uncertainty arises is what happens next - i.e. the secondary effects. And that is precisely why there is such a range or predicted outcomes.

Where the zealotry comes in is usually NOT the scientists, but it is the activists. Add in journalist and also the tendency for media to only report exciting or dramatic stories and you end up with a very skewed view.

At the end of the day we ought to be aiming for world that is sustainable in food, energy and resources. As a society if we want to maintain even our current level of existence then we need sources of power that are not coal, gas and oil. And we ARE getting there. Challenges remain but my how far we have come. I with the UK government(s) had done more to get onto the green energy revolution.

I understand why climate skepticism exists. A lot of it is very reactionary, and partly the sheer lunacy of the religious climate fanatics drives this. Last week one claimed that 50% of people alive today would die in the next 25 years because of climate change. Utterly preoposterous, and no actual mechanism was cited.

Away from the media most scientists are a lot more willing to reveal the uncertainty than they are in public facing roles.

How can anyone be 'phobic' towards Starmer? He's a grey suit, and there are far, far worse people in, and around politics.

He's not very good at the job, but that's little reason to feel 'phobic' towards him.

It's also interesting that many of the responses agreeing come from people who like Farage, who is a far worse person, and whose ideas are disastrous for this country.

There is something, though, that rubs people up the wrong way about Starmer.

I suspect that it might be the lack of deftness with which he handles political issues or principles. He is always telling us what he believes, and trading off this earnest image, but then contradicts himself. Blair could do this faux sincerity very well. Cameron could too, to a point. Starmer can’t land it at all. He comes off as being a tad holier-than-thou.

He also tries to do “strong and decisive” quite a bit (see all his ‘I won’t stand for it’ tweets) which feel inauthentic given his track record of being pretty weak and indecisive in government.

We might not have noticed some of this in different political times, but mainstream politicians come under a lot of pressure now at sounding inauthentic and “of the elite” and unfortunately for Starmer he fits that bill perfectly.

Also, the hypocrisy

They promised to be the “adults in the room”. Oh dear. They promised an end to Tory greed and grift - within a week they were engulfed in freebiegate. And on it goes

Voters REALLY hate hypocrisy. Especially if is dressed in vanity and piety

It’s probably one of the least lovable combinations of characteristics any human can have. And, unfortunately, Starmer has exactly that combination

And they flagged this as well. We truly have a micropenis'd person amongst us. I think I know who it is

I thought you people liked flags. Make your fucking mind up.

Is this even legal ?

Oklahoma State Superintendent @RyanWalters* just announced that every single high school in the state will now be required to have a Turning Point USA chapter.

Ask yourself: how would the right react if a Democratic superintendent forced every school to host a Black Lives Matter club, a Sunrise Movement chapter, an ANTIFA club, or a Planned Parenthood student group? They would call it indoctrination — and they’d be right...
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/1970595596890210451

*Also the guy who allegedly streamed porn during a superintendents meeting.

I have an idea! What about a Trump Youth Movement? I am not sure anything like that has been thought of before.

Didn’t Trump and Epstein already try this?

I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

“I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

“But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

“I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

“Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

It goes on. And on

Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

The Starmer derangement is strong with that one.

Wasn't he a few days ago saying Starmer was an antisemite for recognising Palestinian statehood, ignoring the fact Lady Starmer is err Jewish.

I’m not alone in my consuming Starmer-phobia

“I have worked with, and written about, politicians for more than 35 years. Of all the prime ministers who’ve been in power in that time, I’ve admired a few, agreed with some, disliked others and disagreed with many.

“But no matter what their party, as a rule I’ve thought these men and women deserved credit for going into politics. At its heart it is a noble profession, despite the opprobrium it attracts.

“I’ve always respected the fact that they held the highest elected office in the land, from Harold Wilson (PM when I was born in 1964) onwards – even if Liz Truss pushed that respect to its limits.

“Sir Keir Starmer is my 13th prime minister. And for the first time, I do not merely disagree with the head of government, but despise him.”

It goes on. And on

Stephen Pollard, Daily Mail

I hold no candle for Starmer. I was dissing him before the election. But I think that says more about Pollard than it does about Starmer.

The British right have reacted very badly to the general election result. There's been no introspection about how and why they failed in government. About why they deserved the crushing result at GE2024. About what went so very wrong that they made Liz Truss Prime Minister.

Jumping off the deep end and competing with each other as to who can despise Starmer more is simply a way to avoid facing these uncomfortable questions. It is pathetic.