Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Last stop before the midterms: Virginia 2021 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 30 in General
imageLast stop before the midterms: Virginia 2021 – politicalbetting.com

Next Thursday, America once again goes the polls. Or a few bits of it do, which hold so called ‘Off-year’ elections between four year Presidential cycles and the two year Congressional cycle.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    As I understand it, the Virginia governor's house tends to shift between parties on the offbeat of the presidential elections. So when Obama came up, it was gained by The Republicans, etc.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    All the way back to 1976 (and possibly before), the Virginia governorship has been won by whichever party just lost the presidential election, irrespective of the underlying partisan lean of the state.

    It would therefore be rather surprising if the Democrats were to win here.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,022
    edited October 30
    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    King Cole, mildly surprised. I've heard black widow a few times relating to women who off their husbands, usually for the money.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    It is a common term. Here are just eight black widows collated by Rolling Stone from the AUKUS countries.
    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/killer-wives-8-most-infamous-black-widow-murderers-249561/stacey-castor-249676/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Good morning, everyone.

    King Cole, mildly surprised. I've heard black widow a few times relating to women who off their husbands, usually for the money.

    Oh, right. Just never come across the term. Maybe I don't read enough crime reports!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Eight weeks to Christmas but redundancy looms for @Foxy as Scottish boffins have developed a new test for diabetes.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59095948
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    It is a common term. Here are just eight black widows collated by Rolling Stone from the AUKUS countries.
    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/killer-wives-8-most-infamous-black-widow-murderers-249561/stacey-castor-249676/
    Learning something new every day! Never too old etc!

    In other thoughts, there are reports of flooding in and around Llandudno. Hope Big G's unaffected.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    iirc the upset was priced at 7/2 when first posted. I remember thinking it was a good price but I really couldn't be bothered to monitor American local politics every day till the election.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    Youngkin last matched at 2.06 on betfair, might close out at that rate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    King Cole, we all have blind spots.

    Many years ago, on a mostly American forum, someone wrote a post about a guy I'd never heard of and dropping the N-bomb.

    I was pretty confident, but did check the BBC just to make sure nuclear war hadn't started without my noticing.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    iirc the upset was priced at 7/2 when first posted. I remember thinking it was a good price but I really couldn't be bothered to monitor American local politics every day till the election.
    You can have a bet without monitoring it every day! That would be tiring indeed. Long term politics bets I tend to look at positions once a month or so.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    King Cole, we all have blind spots.

    Many years ago, on a mostly American forum, someone wrote a post about a guy I'd never heard of and dropping the N-bomb.

    I was pretty confident, but did check the BBC just to make sure nuclear war hadn't started without my noticing.

    As I say, always something new. Never heard that term used, either.
    Not quite ‘Semper aliquid novi Africam adferre' of course; it's fairly certain the Romans knew nothing of what we call the Americas.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    Yeah, she’s only been convicted of bumping off one husband, so a bit naughty to call her a black widow.

    What I was getting at is that the BBC failed to mention that she was on husband number four. That doesn’t suggest a woman who is likely to be a victim of coercive control.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    edited October 30
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    Yeah, she’s only been convicted of bumping off one husband, so a bit naughty to call her a black widow.

    What I was getting at is that the BBC failed to mention that she was on husband number four. That doesn’t suggest a woman who is likely to be a victim of coercive control.
    I wonder, was it mentioned in Court? If it was, might have contributed to the jury's opinion.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Eight weeks to Christmas but redundancy looms for @Foxy as Scottish boffins have developed a new test for diabetes.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59095948

    No worries for me. This is a method to better optimise treatment, and sounds potentially useful, by distinguishing between types 1 and 2.

    The number of diabetics in Leicestershire is now 79 000 out of a population of 1 050 000, and goes up about 4 000 per year, so I look to be keeping busy for some time yet.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    rcs1000 said:

    All the way back to 1976 (and possibly before), the Virginia governorship has been won by whichever party just lost the presidential election, irrespective of the underlying partisan lean of the state.

    It would therefore be rather surprising if the Democrats were to win here.

    Historically this is true, but I think it is one of those zombie stats caused by split-ticket voting which doesn't really happen any more. Also, in 2013 Dems won the Governorship just after Obama won re-election.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    Youngkin last matched at 2.06 on betfair, might close out at that rate.

    He should be odds on at this point unless you dont believe the polls.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,922
    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,922
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    Yeah, she’s only been convicted of bumping off one husband, so a bit naughty to call her a black widow.

    What I was getting at is that the BBC failed to mention that she was on husband number four. That doesn’t suggest a woman who is likely to be a victim of coercive control.
    The trial finished yesterday, so presumably all the historic details about this woman’s life couldn’t have been published until now. There’s interviews across the papers with a number of family members today.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
    What @Quincel said. The way this state is trending and the way American politics is polarising into Trump/Not Trump I would characterise a Republican win as an upset.

    Just as Canterbury is historically a safe Conservative seat and Bassetlaw a Labour one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    It certainly sounds a curious case, with the perpetrator attacking in a disused classroom, but also wearing an ankle tag for a previous assault.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    It certainly sounds a curious case, with the perpetrator attacking in a disused classroom, but also wearing an ankle tag for a previous assault.
    The case is curious, yes. And very traumatic for the girls in question.

    But politically speaking there is a highly disturbing dimension in that the assaults were effectively first ignored and then denied.

    Now there may be several reasons for this - although the article hints it’s because the board didn’t want to give critics of self identification any ammunition, there could be other explanations.

    But what it *does* tell me is that even if these people are not dishonest they are utterly incompetent and putting children at risk of serious harm as a result.

    And that is absolutely not good enough. I can quite understand why anyone would seriously consider voting for a candidate that promised to deal with that.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    Yeah, she’s only been convicted of bumping off one husband, so a bit naughty to call her a black widow.

    What I was getting at is that the BBC failed to mention that she was on husband number four. That doesn’t suggest a woman who is likely to be a victim of coercive control.
    Why should numbers of previous relationships indicate that? Indeed there is often a pattern of victims of abuse being picked again by another abuser.

    Certainly the jury thought her defence was unproven in this case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    Yeah, she’s only been convicted of bumping off one husband, so a bit naughty to call her a black widow.

    What I was getting at is that the BBC failed to mention that she was on husband number four. That doesn’t suggest a woman who is likely to be a victim of coercive control.
    Why should numbers of previous relationships indicate that? Indeed there is often a pattern of victims of abuse being picked again by another abuser.

    Certainly the jury thought her defence was unproven in this case.
    On a point of order, Dr, in order to convict they must have been satisfied that her defence had been proven to be false.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,738
    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    It's good to see such coverage.

    The myth that women are only ever victims, and men are only ever perpetrators, is embedded far to deeply in our politics / culture.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    It certainly sounds a curious case, with the perpetrator attacking in a disused classroom, but also wearing an ankle tag for a previous assault.
    The case is curious, yes. And very traumatic for the girls in question.

    But politically speaking there is a highly disturbing dimension in that the assaults were effectively first ignored and then denied.

    Now there may be several reasons for this - although the article hints it’s because the board didn’t want to give critics of self identification any ammunition, there could be other explanations.

    But what it *does* tell me is that even if these people are not dishonest they are utterly incompetent and putting children at risk of serious harm as a result.

    And that is absolutely not good enough. I can quite understand why anyone would seriously consider voting for a candidate that promised to deal with that.
    If the perpetrator was wearing an ankle tag, then surely not ignored. Inappropriately punished and supervised perhaps, but not ignored.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
    I hope you aren't suggesting there will be a statue of Tice.

    The argument in favour of taking action on climate change has to be won before the shift you talk about takes place. It's not inevitable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    It certainly sounds a curious case, with the perpetrator attacking in a disused classroom, but also wearing an ankle tag for a previous assault.
    The case is curious, yes. And very traumatic for the girls in question.

    But politically speaking there is a highly disturbing dimension in that the assaults were effectively first ignored and then denied.

    Now there may be several reasons for this - although the article hints it’s because the board didn’t want to give critics of self identification any ammunition, there could be other explanations.

    But what it *does* tell me is that even if these people are not dishonest they are utterly incompetent and putting children at risk of serious harm as a result.

    And that is absolutely not good enough. I can quite understand why anyone would seriously consider voting for a candidate that promised to deal with that.
    If the perpetrator was wearing an ankle tag, then surely not ignored. Inappropriately punished and supervised perhaps, but not ignored.
    I think you’re missing the point. It was claimed by the board (not the school) that the case hadn’t happened at all, to the girl’s father and then to the press. Which they later had to admit was not correct.

    Now, that should have been a resigning matter for the entire board. AFaics they’re all still in place.

    Not that we can talk as a country. I mean, Spielman’s just had her contract extended.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,174
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
    Not your main point, but there was talk of a second series of Taboo but nothing seems to have popped up? I enjoyed it, not always the case for me with BBC dramas.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    edited October 30
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
    That's like saying that Ohio is a reliable bellweather since it has voted for the President all but 3 times since 1896. But in the last 20 years it has trended Republican to the point that a Democrat could easily win the Presidency while losing Ohio by 5% or more. It's far from the tipping point state, and only heading more red. And one of the 3 times it didn't vote for the winner was 2020 (and Trump won it by 8% despite losing the popular vote nationally by 4.5%!).

    Virginia used to swing against the President's party very reliably, but now it is increasingly just a reliably (if modestly) blue state. The more significant trend isn't the one going through the 80s and 90s but the fact that Republicans have lost every statewide election in Virginia from after 2009.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
    Not your main point, but there was talk of a second series of Taboo but nothing seems to have popped up? I enjoyed it, not always the case for me with BBC dramas.
    I think he has been side tracked by Sony with the Venom movies but says he will make another.

    He is as mad as a box of frogs. There’s an interview on YouTube where he and Andy Serkis ask each other questions from Google Autocorrect. Worth a look with your morning coffee.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,738
    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015
    edited October 30
    moonshine said:



    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.

    I think it is an interesting question, who will play the role of the slave-owners in our present society? Looked up to now, but reviled in 100 years time.

    For a start, it depends on whether the scientific predictions of the future temperature evolution actually come true. We have see -- in the pandemic -- that not all scientific predictions of doom come true. :)

    So, I am not sure it will be people like Richard Tice.

    For example, it could be:

    1. People like Bezos or Zukerberg whose commercial activities have been accompanied by massive tax avoidance. Of course, massive tax avoidance is legal (as slavery once was), but our descendants may come to see it as utterly abhorrent.

    2. Ot alternatively, in 100 years time, it may be completely accepted that people have a right to migrate from poor parts of the world to rich parts. And those who erected borders between countries to prevent economic migration may be in the role of the slavers.

    It is an interesting question -- who will be the Edward Colston for the twenty-second century?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
    That's like saying that Ohio is a reliable bellweather since it has voted for the President all but 3 times since 1896. But in the last 20 years it has trended Republican to the point that a Democrat could easily win the Presidency while losing Ohio by 5% or more. It's far from the tipping point state, and only heading more red. And one of the 3 times it didn't vote for the winner was 2020 (and Trump won it by 8% despite losing the popular vote nationally by 4.5%!).

    Virginia used to swing against the President's party very reliably, but now it is increasingly just a reliably (if modestly) blue state. The more significant trend isn't the one going through the 80s and 90s but the fact that Republicans have lost every statewide election in Virginia from after 2009.
    Yes, the long-term trend is demographic, with the overspill from DC progressively changing the nature of the north of the state. This will negate the old post-70s electoral pattern, sooner or later.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Moonshine, aye, Venus and Mercury are notable for the further planet (from the sun) being hotter.

    I'm sure the Uighurs in concentration camps will rejoice if carbon dioxide emissions can be diminished. Though, speaking only for myself and not the doom of all the world, I'd sooner see every man in the world be free.

    Fear as a sales tactic has proved very successful for global warming/climate change/we all die unless we do what zealots want, and likewise for the tyranny of vaccine passports/Ausweis.

    That doesn't make it right. Worship God, or go to Hell forever. Better to take Pascal's Wager than risk it. Except fear doesn't make you right. The predictions of global warming enthusiasts have proven wrong repeatedly. How many times should Pacific islands have been plunged beneath the waves? Where is the Mediterranean climate the UK was promised?

    The tell is this: lots of anti-global warming measures make sense independently of the theory. More efficient devices, and using renewables (not wind, which is foolish) to a larger extent are two notable examples. But the rhetoric of the religion is drifting into forced compliance (electric cars and heat pumps), punitive costs (see again heat pumps), and the tomfoolery of prioritising 'green' religion to the extent that low carbon dioxide emissions are considered more important than having sufficient electricity. The purpose of the grid is to provide energy not satisfy dogma. Furthermore, by making everything (heating, cooking, cars) electric, the lack of redundancy makes loss of electrical supply catastrophic.

    Lose a power line and you're out of heating, which means burst pipes in the depths of winter and a ruined house. Even at a more pleasant time of year, it means no cooking. And if your car needs recharging then you're out of luck, which means no work (in the worst case scenario).

    If you're really convinced about this then the most rational act isn't inflicting economic self-harm on a country already doing a lot (the UK), it's organising a boycott of Chinese goods and services until they cut back. But that won't happen. Because the aim is not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's to outsource the production of it to others, such as the Chinese, so people at home can pat themselves on the back and contemplate their own virtue (utterly disregarding that we share the same sky). It's the same self-absorbed nonsense that led to the destruction of ancient Indonesian rainforests because some short-sighted fools got drunk on biofuel and wanted to feel good about themselves.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    It’s used to describe women who murder their husbands. Assume from the spider.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    moonshine said:



    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.

    I think it is an interesting question, who will play the role of the slave-owners in our present society? Looked up to now, but reviled in 100 years time.

    For a start, it depends on whether the scientific predictions of the future temperature evolution actually come true. We have see -- in the pandemic -- that not all scientific predictions of doom come true. :)

    So, I am not sure it will be people like Richard Tice.

    For example, it could be:

    1. People like Bezos or Zukerberg whose commercial activities have been accompanied by massive tax avoidance. Of course, massive tax avoidance is legal (as slavery once was), but our descendants may come to see it as utterly abhorrent.

    2. Ot alternatively, in 100 years time, it may be completely accepted that people have a right to migrate from poor parts of the world to rich parts. And those who erected borders between countries to prevent economic migration may be in the role of the slavers.

    It is an interesting question -- who will be the Edward Colston for the twenty-second century?
    I have a sinking feeling it will be meat eaters. I love meat and it’s currently socially acceptable to eat it. But at some point, it’s probable we’ll develop the means of communication with animals. And at that point all bets are off. Hopefully lab meat is mainstream before that day and my descendants will not look in horror at my meat smoking habit in disgust.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,105
    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.
    No need to leave Earth. The last glacial period was seemingly the result of the global temperature falling by just 6C.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    edited October 30
    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    It's good to see such coverage.

    The myth that women are only ever victims, and men are only ever perpetrators, is embedded far to deeply in our politics / culture.
    In the end people have evolved to prefer simple explanatory narratives. It is as much in evidence amongst sophisticated liberal intellectuals; as it is amongst the uneducated mob.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,065
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:



    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.

    I think it is an interesting question, who will play the role of the slave-owners in our present society? Looked up to now, but reviled in 100 years time.

    For a start, it depends on whether the scientific predictions of the future temperature evolution actually come true. We have see -- in the pandemic -- that not all scientific predictions of doom come true. :)

    So, I am not sure it will be people like Richard Tice.

    For example, it could be:

    1. People like Bezos or Zukerberg whose commercial activities have been accompanied by massive tax avoidance. Of course, massive tax avoidance is legal (as slavery once was), but our descendants may come to see it as utterly abhorrent.

    2. Ot alternatively, in 100 years time, it may be completely accepted that people have a right to migrate from poor parts of the world to rich parts. And those who erected borders between countries to prevent economic migration may be in the role of the slavers.

    It is an interesting question -- who will be the Edward Colston for the twenty-second century?
    I have a sinking feeling it will be meat eaters. I love meat and it’s currently socially acceptable to eat it. But at some point, it’s probable we’ll develop the means of communication with animals. And at that point all bets are off. Hopefully lab meat is mainstream before that day and my descendants will not look in horror at my meat smoking habit in disgust.
    What do you mean, we will develop? My cat is perfectly capable of communicating with humans.

    He can tell me when it's time for either feed, out, in, or fuss.

    Admittedly, this is made easier by the fact it's always time for one of those things.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,571

    Mr. Moonshine, aye, Venus and Mercury are notable for the further planet (from the sun) being hotter.

    I'm sure the Uighurs in concentration camps will rejoice if carbon dioxide emissions can be diminished. Though, speaking only for myself and not the doom of all the world, I'd sooner see every man in the world be free.

    Fear as a sales tactic has proved very successful for global warming/climate change/we all die unless we do what zealots want, and likewise for the tyranny of vaccine passports/Ausweis.

    That doesn't make it right. Worship God, or go to Hell forever. Better to take Pascal's Wager than risk it. Except fear doesn't make you right. The predictions of global warming enthusiasts have proven wrong repeatedly. How many times should Pacific islands have been plunged beneath the waves? Where is the Mediterranean climate the UK was promised?

    The tell is this: lots of anti-global warming measures make sense independently of the theory. More efficient devices, and using renewables (not wind, which is foolish) to a larger extent are two notable examples. But the rhetoric of the religion is drifting into forced compliance (electric cars and heat pumps), punitive costs (see again heat pumps), and the tomfoolery of prioritising 'green' religion to the extent that low carbon dioxide emissions are considered more important than having sufficient electricity. The purpose of the grid is to provide energy not satisfy dogma. Furthermore, by making everything (heating, cooking, cars) electric, the lack of redundancy makes loss of electrical supply catastrophic.

    Lose a power line and you're out of heating, which means burst pipes in the depths of winter and a ruined house. Even at a more pleasant time of year, it means no cooking. And if your car needs recharging then you're out of luck, which means no work (in the worst case scenario).

    If you're really convinced about this then the most rational act isn't inflicting economic self-harm on a country already doing a lot (the UK), it's organising a boycott of Chinese goods and services until they cut back. But that won't happen. Because the aim is not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's to outsource the production of it to others, such as the Chinese, so people at home can pat themselves on the back and contemplate their own virtue (utterly disregarding that we share the same sky). It's the same self-absorbed nonsense that led to the destruction of ancient Indonesian rainforests because some short-sighted fools got drunk on biofuel and wanted to feel good about themselves.

    None of that stands up to the brute fact of year after year of record temperatures. The changes you say aren't occurring, are, as you would notice if you skied, or visited the Scottish Highlands regularly. For a decade I have been growing citrus in a cold greenhouse on top of Dartmoor, so there's your Mediterranean climate. And the Maldives are bloody worried, not taking it.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
    What @Quincel said. The way this state is trending and the way American politics is polarising into Trump/Not Trump I would characterise a Republican win as an upset.

    Just as Canterbury is historically a safe Conservative seat and Bassetlaw a Labour one.
    Virginia is on the blue side of purple already. At some not too distant date, it'll be as blue as Maryland. If the Republicans pull this one off to prove Robert right, I really think it will be the last hurrah of that pattern.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    No worries @ydoethur but thanks for the recognition.

    Anecdotally, all the signs don’t look great on the ground. Youngkin posters are apparently sprouting up in Blue suburbs while McAuliffe ones are hard to find. The McAuliffe campaign has also hired Marc Elias’ law firm, which is leading to suggestions he is already getting ready to contest the result. Also, early voting has been strongest in the Loudoun County district, which may point to the transgender student case there / general school issues being a motivator to drive people to Youngkin.

    I got in at 7/2 on smarkets and kicking myself I didn’t bet more. If anyone is interested, I’ve put Youngkin on to win at over 2.5% at 9/2 when I looked. I might be totally wrong but I have the feeling the stars haven’t aligned at all for the Democrats on this one and that the Republican turnout will be high.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    Mr. Moonshine, aye, Venus and Mercury are notable for the further planet (from the sun) being hotter.

    I'm sure the Uighurs in concentration camps will rejoice if carbon dioxide emissions can be diminished. Though, speaking only for myself and not the doom of all the world, I'd sooner see every man in the world be free.

    Fear as a sales tactic has proved very successful for global warming/climate change/we all die unless we do what zealots want, and likewise for the tyranny of vaccine passports/Ausweis.

    That doesn't make it right. Worship God, or go to Hell forever. Better to take Pascal's Wager than risk it. Except fear doesn't make you right. The predictions of global warming enthusiasts have proven wrong repeatedly. How many times should Pacific islands have been plunged beneath the waves? Where is the Mediterranean climate the UK was promised?

    The tell is this: lots of anti-global warming measures make sense independently of the theory. More efficient devices, and using renewables (not wind, which is foolish) to a larger extent are two notable examples. But the rhetoric of the religion is drifting into forced compliance (electric cars and heat pumps), punitive costs (see again heat pumps), and the tomfoolery of prioritising 'green' religion to the extent that low carbon dioxide emissions are considered more important than having sufficient electricity. The purpose of the grid is to provide energy not satisfy dogma. Furthermore, by making everything (heating, cooking, cars) electric, the lack of redundancy makes loss of electrical supply catastrophic.

    Lose a power line and you're out of heating, which means burst pipes in the depths of winter and a ruined house. Even at a more pleasant time of year, it means no cooking. And if your car needs recharging then you're out of luck, which means no work (in the worst case scenario).

    If you're really convinced about this then the most rational act isn't inflicting economic self-harm on a country already doing a lot (the UK), it's organising a boycott of Chinese goods and services until they cut back. But that won't happen. Because the aim is not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's to outsource the production of it to others, such as the Chinese, so people at home can pat themselves on the back and contemplate their own virtue (utterly disregarding that we share the same sky). It's the same self-absorbed nonsense that led to the destruction of ancient Indonesian rainforests because some short-sighted fools got drunk on biofuel and wanted to feel good about themselves.

    It’s such a difficult problem to solve and the potential consequences of failing to do so, so dire, it’s easier for the human brain to construct fairly baseless conspiracies about why it’s a) either not happening, or b) doesn’t matter to me Jack.

    It’s the reason why I expect in my lifetime to see some of the biggest companies in the world being co2 harvesters, because it’s pretty plain that global society isn’t going to move quickly enough to abate in time. By the way a little pub quiz question for you, the biggest producer of renewable power in the world is…. That self same country is also outside the top 40 carbon polluters per capita in the world.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Z, the UK does not have a Mediterranean climate (though the land did go through a warm period during the reigns of Caligula and Claudius).

    And, as I said, if you really believe this then what would make a difference is cutting emissions from major polluters not shaving off a tiny percentage from a much smaller country already doing far more than them. Organise, or support, an economic boycott until emissions are cut.

    Or bleat about how the UK must do more while China takes the economic gain, emits carbon dioxide by the bucketload, and the shared atmosphere, in your view, gets irreversibly contaminated.

    One of those things is effective (if it works).
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944

    moonshine said:



    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.

    I think it is an interesting question, who will play the role of the slave-owners in our present society? Looked up to now, but reviled in 100 years time.

    For a start, it depends on whether the scientific predictions of the future temperature evolution actually come true. We have see -- in the pandemic -- that not all scientific predictions of doom come true. :)

    So, I am not sure it will be people like Richard Tice.

    For example, it could be:

    1. People like Bezos or Zukerberg whose commercial activities have been accompanied by massive tax avoidance. Of course, massive tax avoidance is legal (as slavery once was), but our descendants may come to see it as utterly abhorrent.

    2. Ot alternatively, in 100 years time, it may be completely accepted that people have a right to migrate from poor parts of the world to rich parts. And those who erected borders between countries to prevent economic migration may be in the role of the slavers.

    It is an interesting question -- who will be the Edward Colston for the twenty-second century?
    It is indeed an interesting question.

    On your number 1, some of us already think that the greed and massive tax avoidance of Bezos, Zuckerberg and many, many others is utterly abhorrent. So we don't need to wait until our descendants reach the same conclusion.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    IanB2 said:

    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    Interesting article, but doesn't really discuss WHY, beyond some reference to national trends, the race is so close in a fairly Democratic state.

    From friends in DC, I hear there are three main reasons. First, education, mostly a state and local matter in America. The Republicans have been hammering home the message of local control over education, which is another way of saying keep political correctness out of schools in white suburban and rural areas. Also, Youngkin's plan to support charter schools has been popular. The Democrats, so in hock to the woke and teachers' unions, can't match him on this. Second, the economy. Youngkin is marginally more trusted here than McAuliffe. Third, law and order - a perennial Republican strength away from big cities.

    I think if McAuliffe wins, it'll show that Trump is still enough of a drain on Republican support among swing voters to outwiegh local factors, despite Biden's current unpopularity.

    Not one of my favourite posters, but @MrEd has been pointing this one out as a possible upset for some time.

    Linked to your point about education, he has highlighted this extremely disturbing case (on many levels) as the current hot button issue:

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2021/october/va-judge-finds-transgender-teen-guilty-of-sexual-assault-in-loudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

    Whether he’s right or not I don’t know but certainly the Republicans seem to be running it front and centre.
    How much of an upset would it be?

    In 1976, the Democrats won the Presidency and the following year, the Republicans captured Virginia.
    In 1980, the tables turned and the Republicans won the Presidency. The following year Virginia voted in a Democrat Governor.
    In 1984, Reagan swept the country, including a big win in Virginia. The following year, a Democrat was elected.
    1988: Republicans win (again) nationwide. 1989: the Democrats win the Virginia governors race.
    1992: Bill Clinton! 1993: the Republicans take the governorship.
    ...
    Etc

    This pattern now goes back no fewer than eleven electoral cycles (and maybe more, I simply haven't checked) - the party with the Presidency loses the Virginia governors race, irrespective of what's going on in state.
    That's like saying that Ohio is a reliable bellweather since it has voted for the President all but 3 times since 1896. But in the last 20 years it has trended Republican to the point that a Democrat could easily win the Presidency while losing Ohio by 5% or more. It's far from the tipping point state, and only heading more red. And one of the 3 times it didn't vote for the winner was 2020 (and Trump won it by 8% despite losing the popular vote nationally by 4.5%!).

    Virginia used to swing against the President's party very reliably, but now it is increasingly just a reliably (if modestly) blue state. The more significant trend isn't the one going through the 80s and 90s but the fact that Republicans have lost every statewide election in Virginia from after 2009.
    Yes, the long-term trend is demographic, with the overspill from DC progressively changing the nature of the north of the state. This will negate the old post-70s electoral pattern, sooner or later.
    I think that is too simplistic. Trump has being a big turnoff in the suburbs but, as Youngkin is showing, Republicans are still a force in VA. Not only is the Governor’s race close but also for the Lt Gov, AG and House races.

    Just one other point, but I couldn’t find a betting market for it - there is an outside chance the Republicans get the NJ Governorship. Long odds but their candidate is a moderate (no endorsement from the NRA, supports abortion choice). I don’t think he does it (last poll was 9 lead for Murphy) but, given the news flow of the past few days on the Congress front, I wouldn’t rule out a shock.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Moonshine, total output is what counts. Where is the carbon dioxide coming from?

    I get that per capita gets you to rag on the West a lot more but if the totals are lower from Belgium than China, that's what matters.

    Anyway, I must return to my carefree heresy. Might even eat some chicken.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    Mr. Z, the UK does not have a Mediterranean climate (though the land did go through a warm period during the reigns of Caligula and Claudius).

    And, as I said, if you really believe this then what would make a difference is cutting emissions from major polluters not shaving off a tiny percentage from a much smaller country already doing far more than them. Organise, or support, an economic boycott until emissions are cut.

    Or bleat about how the UK must do more while China takes the economic gain, emits carbon dioxide by the bucketload, and the shared atmosphere, in your view, gets irreversibly contaminated.

    One of those things is effective (if it works).

    I do like you as a poster but this would be a better argument if you looked at the facts. China is doing far more than most industrialised nations to confront this problem. They are of course the answer to my earlier pub quiz question.

    You talked about the Uighers (not sure why?). I’ve been out that way a fair bit. And seen with my own eyes the shiny new coal power stations out on the fringes of the Taklamakan desert. The type so beloved of the right wing press on this topic. Still shiny even when not so new. Because Beijing inspectors flew in and ripped up the construction permits handed out by corrupt local party officials. I am fearful and generally disdainful of the communist party. But they are for sure more focused on this problem than most industrialised nations of the world.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    Mr. Moonshine, total output is what counts. Where is the carbon dioxide coming from?

    I get that per capita gets you to rag on the West a lot more but if the totals are lower from Belgium than China, that's what matters.

    Anyway, I must return to my carefree heresy. Might even eat some chicken.

    I thought output didn’t matter because there’s no such thing as global warming, or if there is who cares?
  • tlg86 said:

    this wasn’t reported on the BBC...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134521/Widow-murdered-fourth-husband-coerced-gassing-himself.html

    A black widow may have coerced her third husband into gassing himself in the garage of their family home, his brother claims.

    Stewart Warrender said Penny Jackson made his brother Alan's life a misery before he uncovered her affair with retired army officer husband David Jackson in 1993 and took his own life.

    Mornin' all.
    Why is she described as a 'black widow'? Not heard that term before, apart from spiders.
    And yes I know some at least species of spiders eat their mates after mating.
    It is a common term. Here are just eight black widows collated by Rolling Stone from the AUKUS countries.
    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/killer-wives-8-most-infamous-black-widow-murderers-249561/stacey-castor-249676/
    Learning something new every day! Never too old etc!

    In other thoughts, there are reports of flooding in and around Llandudno. Hope Big G's unaffected.
    Good morning @OldKingCole

    A nearby road was flooded but we do get regular flooding in the Conwy Valley

    Before the sea defences were strenthened we used to get yearly flooding from the sea as well
  • JBriskin3 said:

    Morning,

    Just checking in as i said I'd try to do.

    Good morning @JBriskin3
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I haven’t read Tice’s comments but, on your last paragraph, the single biggest issue is China’s refusal to cut down on its emissions. It is by far and away the biggest producer. Not only that but your view that the West should pick up the slack by offsetting more would give China a massive incentive to pump up its emissions - the more it emitted, the more the West would have to de-emit so that global targets would be met. You’d be ruining the planet and allowing China to dominate the world in one go.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited October 30
    I expect the GOP to win the Virginia governorship. Remember Bob McDonnell won it for the Republicans in 2009 the year after Obama was elected when Obama had higher ratings than Biden does now. The off year Virginia governors election has gone against the party of the incoming President every year since 1977.

    While Virginia has been trending blue, particularly in the highly educated DC suburbs, much of the state is also rural and still very red. Remember it also used to be a solid GOP state, voting for the Republican candidate for President at every presidential election from 1952 until 2004 with the exception of 1964 when it went for LBJ
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,526
    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    There is a lot of political mileage in doubting the policies, because many of them are self evidently absurd. McDonalds staff know that the soggy, unrecyclable paper straws are worse than recyclable (or reusable) plastic straws. The Council environmental health officer will tell you that composting leads to significant problems regarding the infestation of rodents, but it is politically impossible to say this. The people in the co-op know it is ridiculous to not be able to sell any bags at all; only useless 'compostible' bags which don't compost.

    Much of this can be accepted as largely harmless but annoying fetishes on the part of the 'educated' classes being imposed on the rest of society. However once they start bringing in measures that really harm low income people (such as a war on cheap cars and a green levy on energy bills), as they are now actually doing, with all the political parties falling over themselves to support the measures and dismiss any criticism of it, the whole thing can easily be made to look like class war.


  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    boulay said:

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Brexiteers do seem to be upset that the BBC is not slavishly regurgitating their spin on this one

    And at 9am yet another round of headlines without any mention of France being utterly isolated and humiliated by the Commission. Lashing out in an election year. Completely bizarre.
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1454358114195681287

    It is surprising given how craven the BBC have been up to this point.

    Perhaps the Brexiteers were right to be worried about the appointment of Jess Brammer
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737
    MrEd said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I haven’t read Tice’s comments but, on your last paragraph, the single biggest issue is China’s refusal to cut down on its emissions. It is by far and away the biggest producer. Not only that but your view that the West should pick up the slack by offsetting more would give China a massive incentive to pump up its emissions - the more it emitted, the more the West would have to de-emit so that global targets would be met. You’d be ruining the planet and allowing China to dominate the world in one go.
    China isn’t silly. It sees how much effort was expended by the Americans in the last 70 years and before them the British and Imperial Japanese to secure overseas hydrocarbons. And it is acutely aware of its import dependence for energy. So it will do everything in its power to address that.

    Its coal deposits are largely in the wrong part of its huge landmass and cross border gas pipelines merely diversify rather than mitigate the risk. Strategic resilience is the primary goal of basically all the Party’s policies. The continued glory of the Party and “Greater China” will depend upon self generation from renewables combined with mass electrification of its economy. The Party’s leadership is better educated in science than in most countries and so it also realises the broader benefits of decarbonisation. So that is what they are aggressively setting out to achieve, no matter whether Xi goes to Boris’s little gathering or not.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005
    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    There is a lot of political mileage in doubting the policies, because many of them are self evidently absurd. McDonalds staff know that the soggy, unrecyclable paper straws are worse than recyclable (or reusable) plastic straws. The Council environmental health officer will tell you that composting leads to significant problems regarding the infestation of rodents, but it is politically impossible to say this. The people in the co-op know it is ridiculous to not be able to sell any bags at all; only useless 'compostible' bags which don't compost.

    Much of this can be accepted as largely harmless but annoying fetishes on the part of the 'educated' classes being imposed on the rest of society. However once they start bringing in measures that really harm low income people (such as a war on cheap cars and a green levy on energy bills), as they are now actually doing, with all the political parties falling over themselves to support the measures and dismiss any criticism of it, the whole thing can easily be made to look like class war.


    Truly opinions from the dark ages.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
    Terrible programme, congrats for getting through it.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all, cricket day again! 🏏

    As expected, PM getting a challenge from the right. Richard Tice to stand in Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election, taking on the PM’s green agenda.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/29/land-by-election-blow-boris-johnsons-nanny-state-says-reform/

    I watched Taboo recently. The one with Tom Hardy on the Beeb. We just take for granted now that the slavers are the baddies and the abolitionists righteous. Yeah yeah see things in the context of the time and all that. But we don’t really. We see slavers as an abomination.

    Seems pretty clear that 100 years from now, today’s public figures standing in the way of action against climate change will be seen as history’s new slavers. Wallies like Tice would do well to think on that given their ego and desire for legacy.
    Terrible programme, congrats for getting through it.
    It was rather slow but the backdrops of 19th century London were good.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,737

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    I think he is objecting to the simple comparison of Earth, Venus and Mars.

    Though a great deal of information has been added to the understanding of how atmospheres work and heat emission vs trapping in them from studying Mars and Venus. Which has greatly informed the science of climate on Earth.

    Which, anytime someone bangs on about space being irrelevant in the face of climate change, should be waved in their face. As a start
  • boulayboulay Posts: 178
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Brexiteers do seem to be upset that the BBC is not slavishly regurgitating their spin on this one

    And at 9am yet another round of headlines without any mention of France being utterly isolated and humiliated by the Commission. Lashing out in an election year. Completely bizarre.
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1454358114195681287

    It is surprising given how craven the BBC have been up to this point.

    Perhaps the Brexiteers were right to be worried about the appointment of Jess Brammer
    Yes Scott, it’s all Brexiteer spin…..

    How about this from the Jersey minister responsible for the fishing situation who was against Brexit and, wait for it, French!

    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/28/home-affairs-minister-ashamed-to-be-french-after-france-issues-landing-and-power-threat/

    And then this guy, who I actually know and hated Brexit

    https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/breton-and-norman-fishermen-are-happy-and-just-want-get-fishing/#.YX0EWyR4WEc


  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    moonshine said:

    MrEd said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I haven’t read Tice’s comments but, on your last paragraph, the single biggest issue is China’s refusal to cut down on its emissions. It is by far and away the biggest producer. Not only that but your view that the West should pick up the slack by offsetting more would give China a massive incentive to pump up its emissions - the more it emitted, the more the West would have to de-emit so that global targets would be met. You’d be ruining the planet and allowing China to dominate the world in one go.
    China isn’t silly. It sees how much effort was expended by the Americans in the last 70 years and before them the British and Imperial Japanese to secure overseas hydrocarbons. And it is acutely aware of its import dependence for energy. So it will do everything in its power to address that.

    Its coal deposits are largely in the wrong part of its huge landmass and cross border gas pipelines merely diversify rather than mitigate the risk. Strategic resilience is the primary goal of basically all the Party’s policies. The continued glory of the Party and “Greater China” will depend upon self generation from renewables combined with mass electrification of its economy. The Party’s leadership is better educated in science than in most countries and so it also realises the broader benefits of decarbonisation. So that is what they are aggressively setting out to achieve, no matter whether Xi goes to Boris’s little gathering or not.
    So a carbon tax on imports would just encourage the Chinese in a direction they were already travelling?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    Disappointed to see climate change denialism on a top notch site like this. That's strictly for heads that are soft or in the sand.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015
    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    That is not what is in dispute. The signal for sure is way above the noise.

    What is an entirely legitimate topic for scientific discourse is the modelling of the future evolution of the signal.

    The computer codes do an excellent job of explaining the past history of climate. They are calibrated to do so.

    As in many areas of messy physics, they contain empirical parameters ("fudge factors") which just cannot be experimentally constrained -- such as for example formation of clouds and their radiative feedback.

    They are tuned so the codes agree with present and past climate. This does not mean that the codes necessarily have any predictive value.

    Complex multi-physics codes are fallible predictive tools, even when calibrated by experimental data.

    Another example, from astrophysics, is the core collapse supernova. In the real world they explode, but not in the computer calculations, despite forty years of trying to capture all the physics.

    --

    Actually I think the analogy with COVID is a good one. The Covid scientists were in a bind. They either over-predicted deaths (in which case they were blamed for doom-mongering) or they under-predicted (in which case my recollection is that @Leon wanted to send them to prison).

    Ditto climate change scientists.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Bet you can beat it, no problem. You're a total flake on this subject, aren't you?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,526
    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Bet you can beat it, no problem. You're a total flake on this subject, aren't you?
    If you mean an expert then yes.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,393
    edited October 30
    moonshine said:


    China isn’t silly. It sees how much effort was expended by the Americans in the last 70 years and before them the British and Imperial Japanese to secure overseas hydrocarbons. And it is acutely aware of its import dependence for energy. So it will do everything in its power to address that.

    Its coal deposits are largely in the wrong part of its huge landmass and cross border gas pipelines merely diversify rather than mitigate the risk. Strategic resilience is the primary goal of basically all the Party’s policies. The continued glory of the Party and “Greater China” will depend upon self generation from renewables combined with mass electrification of its economy. The Party’s leadership is better educated in science than in most countries and so it also realises the broader benefits of decarbonisation. So that is what they are aggressively setting out to achieve, no matter whether Xi goes to Boris’s little gathering or not.

    I'm no expert on Chinese policy, but my impression i sthat they simultaneously recognise it's a real problem (not least because of the very immediate problems of smog) but they don't like other countries telling them what to do, especially countries with a record of far more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than theirs. So, like the US, they are unenthusiastic about binding international agreements, and will only make the minimum commitment not to be seen as wreckers, but at the same time they're pushing renewable energy as ast as they can.

    It seems to me that our views on China are polarised to a greater degree than the facts justify. They are an intolerant autocracy who impose real oppression on anyone who doesn't conform to the approved model - whether that's Hong Kong residents wanting free choice or Uighurs wanting a distinctive culture. They are not, however, reckless, and actually pretty good at managing their economy and trying to avoid medium-term disasters. They are internationally prickly and insensitive, but not recently aggressive. We should deal with them as rational partners whom we don't especially like.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    There is a lot of political mileage in doubting the policies, because many of them are self evidently absurd. McDonalds staff know that the soggy, unrecyclable paper straws are worse than recyclable (or reusable) plastic straws. The Council environmental health officer will tell you that composting leads to significant problems regarding the infestation of rodents, but it is politically impossible to say this. The people in the co-op know it is ridiculous to not be able to sell any bags at all; only useless 'compostible' bags which don't compost.

    Much of this can be accepted as largely harmless but annoying fetishes on the part of the 'educated' classes being imposed on the rest of society. However once they start bringing in measures that really harm low income people (such as a war on cheap cars and a green levy on energy bills), as they are now actually doing, with all the political parties falling over themselves to support the measures and dismiss any criticism of it, the whole thing can easily be made to look like class war.


    Truly opinions from the dark ages.
    Don't shoot the messenger.

    It is the progressives that are leading us in to a dark age; I am merely pointing out how.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    I think the Venus thing is a distraction. We have far better evidence much closer to home. There is no need to attempt to extrapolate from a planet with a massively thick atmosphere closer to the sun where it rains sulphuric acid.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
  • kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    That's not the argument that people highlighting China's emissions are making. The argument that they're making is that British businesses closing down do not represent a real drop on CO2 output, because demand for the goods they were producing does not fall, so production is merely moved to locations like China, where the energy needed to create the goods is no less, and indeed is more likely to come from coal. I have not heard many people on this site condemning Germany as an environmental villain, yet they are 'doing worse' than us on emissions, by virtue of the fact that they have kept much more of their industry. It is utterly ludicrous that a British PM should be able to get warm handshakes and a gold star at an international summit, because of our emissions 'success' when in fact what has happened is an economical failure. We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.
    I am a strong proponent of the CBAM, certainly if China does not commit to significant binding reductions at COP 26. Now I know CBAM is an EU thing and the UK is not in the EU, but I expect us to implement something almost identical. First, because I think the government do genuinely understand the problem of emissions imports, secondly because our access to the single market depends on it.

    So yes, I think we are agreed. And a border adjustment mechanism solves the problem.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
    I studied a lot of climatology at university as part of my degree. Even back then, in the 1990s, the radiative equations were known and closely supported in the climate record. However, the signal was only just emerging from the noise. Natural variability in the global atmospheric temperature is of the order of around 0.2-0.4C each year, and there are decadal oscillations of up to about 0.5C too driven mainly by ENSO but also to a lesser extent (0.1-0.2C) solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere mid latitude circulation.

    By the early 2000s the signal was clearly emerging and scientists also realised that ocean heat content was less variable than air temperature year on year and showed more of a straight monotonic rise. Then we entered a decade where the sceptics fought back. First, some satellite estimates of temperature rise showed much slower (but still there) warming trend than surface readings. Then a prolonged period of repeated La Niña conditions in the pacific and strengthens trade winds flattened the atmospheric warming trend from around 2005 to 2014 (the “hiatus”).

    The satellite records turned out to have various measurement biases which once corrected for ended up giving a very similar trend to the surface (even the record maintained by climate sceptic Roy Spencer eventually got there), and the hiatus of course ended with temperatures rocketing in 2015 and 16. The line pretty closely fits the models and has done now for years. There is still a question mark over whether we are headed for equilibrium warming of day 2.5C or up to 6C because we still don’t know everything about the impact of feedbacks particularly water vapour and cloudiness, but the range of projections has been tightening into the 3-4C zone over time.

    The problem of communication is not so much from the scientists as some activists, who by promising apocalypse Tomorrow create a bit of a cry wolf situation. The fact is the temperature trends just go up and up, in a neatly linear fashion, decade upon decade.
    Thanks for a great response - much appreciated.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 178
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    edited October 30

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    Venus surface temp - a remarkably even average of 475c
    Mercury surface temp - *max* 449c - the temperature varies enormously because of the way Mercury rotates. Which means that the night side gets really, really cold.

    There's a ton of papers on the greenhouse effect on Venus, and effects of the various components of the atmosphere and the clouds.

    EDIT: Mercury pretty much doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus has one, all right. The surface pressure is the same as 3,000 feet underwater on earth.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,571

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Political climate change denial of the Tice variety I think will come to be seen in a similar light to those politicians who sought to delay or water down the abolition of slavery rather than the slavers themselves. The closer analogue would be the fossil fuel interests or the farmers deforesting the rainforests, but the comparison there falls down a little as fossil fuel use and intensive agriculture demonstrably advanced human development globally in a way slavery never did. It’s simply the case that these practices need to change, and change very rapidly, to avert catastrophe.

    The other analogy that doesn’t hold up is of climate scientists fear mongering over an unproven set of hypotheses. Unlike say Covid, the radiative forcing of CO2 is known, has been estimated to a high degree of accuracy for a century, and is replicated in a linear, monotonic increase in global air temperature, ocean heat content and sea level over several decades. The signal really is way greater than the noise.

    I doubt someone like Tice plans to doubt the science. There’s little mileage or credibility in that anymore. The arguments are now more about policy. I suspect his gist will be why should Britain do anything when China and the US emit far more. It’s the same as that classic poujadiste take that rails against speed bumps or drink driving laws because “they should be focusing on solving proper crimes like rape and murder”. Poujadisme has strong support in sections of society including the white van demographic, which is quite significant in Bexley and Sidcup.

    I'm interested in your comments regarding the scientific evidence for AGW. My understanding is that whilst it is still highly probable, the scientific proof had not really grown in magnitude so much as those advancing the case have grown in volume. But from your second paragraph, that doesn't appear to be the case. Please share more if you wish.
    I studied a lot of climatology at university as part of my degree. Even back then, in the 1990s, the radiative equations were known and closely supported in the climate record. However, the signal was only just emerging from the noise. Natural variability in the global atmospheric temperature is of the order of around 0.2-0.4C each year, and there are decadal oscillations of up to about 0.5C too driven mainly by ENSO but also to a lesser extent (0.1-0.2C) solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere mid latitude circulation.

    By the early 2000s the signal was clearly emerging and scientists also realised that ocean heat content was less variable than air temperature year on year and showed more of a straight monotonic rise. Then we entered a decade where the sceptics fought back. First, some satellite estimates of temperature rise showed much slower (but still there) warming trend than surface readings. Then a prolonged period of repeated La Niña conditions in the pacific and strengthens trade winds flattened the atmospheric warming trend from around 2005 to 2014 (the “hiatus”).

    The satellite records turned out to have various measurement biases which once corrected for ended up giving a very similar trend to the surface (even the record maintained by climate sceptic Roy Spencer eventually got there), and the hiatus of course ended with temperatures rocketing in 2015 and 16. The line pretty closely fits the models and has done now for years. There is still a question mark over whether we are headed for equilibrium warming of day 2.5C or up to 6C because we still don’t know everything about the impact of feedbacks particularly water vapour and cloudiness, but the range of projections has been tightening into the 3-4C zone over time.

    The problem of communication is not so much from the scientists as some activists, who by promising apocalypse Tomorrow create a bit of a cry wolf situation. The fact is the temperature trends just go up and up, in a neatly linear fashion, decade upon decade.
    Thanks for a great response - much appreciated.
    A crude but helpful analogy: at the end of 1935 about 3 people understood that detonating an atomic bomb might be a possibility. At the end of 1945 there was rather more evidence available.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,602


    We need a new measure for the carbon that Britain and Britons are putting into the atmosphere, including carbon overseas.

    This is a thing, it's called Consumption-based CO2:
    https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Mr. Moonshine as an aside, the BBC News website has a separate tab for Coronavirus, and then one for the Climate.

    I disagree entirely with your perspective, though. The idea that disagreement over a scientific theory is as bad as the enslavement of human beings is of the same brand of lunacy that brought you "words are violence".

    When an eminent priest in the religion prophesies the end of snow in the UK and then a few years later we have two of the worst winters ever recorded it doesn't inspire faith. Well, not in me. I must be a doubting Thomas.

    To anyone that doubts the thrust of the theory, I would ask that they compare the distance from the Sun of Mercury and Venus, their relative temperatures and the composition of their atmospheres. The scientific debate is really only about how much slack we have in emissions before we have changed the climate sufficiently to make life unpleasant enough that we wish we hadn’t.

    For sure I put it in the same box as industrialised human slavery. It is arguably far worse, as slavery impacted those alive at the time very severely but impacted their descendants to a far lesser extent, through the echoes down the ages of racial prejudice. The worst outcomes from man made global warming will impact many generations directly and as severely as the one that came before, unless a great deal of energy and treasure is expended to undo the damage. Much of which is irreversible of course. As has been noted, CO2 molecules are depressingly stable over a timescale far beyond the lifespan of pretty much any complex species, yet alone human civilisation.
    That is one of the most poorly informed and scientifically illiterate posts I have seen on here in a very long time.
    Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a remarkably stable molecule unless subjected to high heat or moisture? Or that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Or that it has a co2 dense atmosphere whereas Mercury barely has an atmosphere at all?
    The Venus vs. Mercury argument is a powerful one - has this actually been solidified into numbers anywhere? It would be interesting to look at a calculation of the effect seen on Venus based on distance to the sun and amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and what that means for a planet of Earth's distance from the sun and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. This would be a very easy exercise for boffins, and whilst not definitive, would be interesting.
    Venus surface temp - a remarkably even average of 475c
    Mercury surface temp - *max* 449c - the temperature varies enormously because of the way Mercury rotates. Which means that the night side gets really, really cold.

    There's a ton of papers on the greenhouse effect on Venus, and effects of the various components of the atmosphere and the clouds.

    EDIT: Mercury pretty much doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus has one, all right. The surface pressure is the same as 3,000 feet underwater on earth.
    I'm sure there are, and I am not questioning it - it seems self-evident. I was suggesting that an extrapolation using those figures of the greenhouse effect on the earth would be interesting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,008
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    Except the initial and largest furore has not been with “this Boris Johnson government” it kicked off when the French fisheries minister was trying to bully the Jersey government - not a Boris in sight - into ignoring the terms of the treaty the EU signed on behalf of France (the beauty of being in the EU where you don’t have control over everything….).

    The States of Jersey followed to the letter the terms of the treaty and when the French realised that a few of their fishermen hadn’t kept their records (I wonder why??) that they wanted to ignore the treaty as that’s what members of rules based organisations do…..

    So the parts of the UK who naturally hate the UK think it must be the fault of our evil politicians and in no way the blame on the wildly socialist fishing minister whose constituency is dependent on the fishing vote, and of course in no way the fault of Macron trying to burnish his napoleonic credentials ahead of the election. Must be our fault of course.

    And in perfect timing the radio 4 news headlines started with Macron saying the fishing vow was a test of the UK’s international credibility! Not perhaps anyone saying the Fishing row is a test of France’s credibility to follow the treaty they are signed up to via the wonderful EU……
    Does anyone have a link to the EU regulations regarding position locators on fishing boats? In the age of GPS etc, it has certainly long been possible to record such things cheaply and with a small box of tricks...

    It is my understanding that "digital tachographs" are pretty standard in the trucking industry - and have been for a while.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,318
    edited October 30
    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,738
    Prince Andrew request to have case dismissed:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59099346
This discussion has been closed.