Labour Party candidates the furthest away from their supporters on issues
Werent the like of Owen Jones trying to say it was Ukip that had this problem?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 31/01/2014 12:55 As you can see, on ideology and migration #Labour have problems (by Michael Thrasher at Plymouth) --> pic.twitter.com/qWVnzqvBG2
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
No, I think that is a misreading. If we get a Conservative-led government in 2015 and hence get a referendum, it is inconceivable that Conservative MPs, ministers and members would be required to campaign on one side or the other. As with the Labour government in the EEC referendum of 1975, they would be free to campaign on either side. (More recently, this was Labour's position in the AV referendum as well).
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
I have some sympathy for your views, but I disagree that we know a hell of a lot about the way greenhouses gasses act in the climate, as opposed to laboratory setting.
For instance, they are nowhere near understanding the interactions between atmospheric and oceanic CO2. There is even some debate about how much rainforests are a CO2 sink or source, and we've been studying those for decades.
Likewise, the solar effects on the climate are little known. Many (although not all) climate scientists say they are irrelevant, or are well catered in models; however, there is a great deal of doubt.
They are far from rock solid settled. And if you really thought they were surely you'd be calling for all research on them to be stopped as a waste of money?
No, we know exactly how greenhouse gases act in the atmosphere. A substance that acts one way (in very short, trapping heat) is not going to take on different fundamental physical properties just because you move it a few miles up! In any case, we can watch it in action up there nowadays)
Similarly, we know a hell of a lot about the Sun's impact on the climate, such as 11 year sunspot cycles, or the wobbles in the Earth's orbit that occur over thousands of years (and drive ice ages)
Agree with you about forests, and atmosphere / ocean interactions etc. But, important though they are in their own right, uncertainty along these lines (and uncertainty in forecast models) don't undermine the fundamental rock-solid scientific "fact" - that the planet has warmed and this can only be explained by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
Hmmm, I said we don't know how greenhouses gasses act in the climate, and you change it to 'in the atmosphere'. There is a big difference between the two: climate includes the cryosphere and hydrosphere as well as the atmosphere and other things, and these systems, and their interactions, need to be understood before you can model the climate.
There's much more to say about this that can effectively be said on here, but I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. There is evidence pointing towards it, but that evidence is far from compelling to me atm.
It's like a court case: some evidence has been placed in front of us that a crime may have been committed, and that there may have been any number of people responsible. You have looked at the evidence and decided on the culprit. I'm a lot less certain - you may well be right - but it may be others or worse, a gang crime with many different perpetrators.
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
No, I think that is a misreading. If we get a Conservative-led government in 2015 and hence get a referendum, it is inconceivable that Conservative MPs, ministers and members would be required to campaign on one side or the other. As with the Labour government in the EEC referendum of 1975, they would be free to campaign on either side. (More recently, this was Labour's position in the AV referendum as well).
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Hollande has rebuffed Cammo on the EU, which is no surprise to me or most of us on PB. I wonder why cammo thought he had an understanding with the French: or is it that he hoped for this outcome all along?
If anybody still thinks the Cammo will go forward with a referendum on the EU - even if elected - let them think again. A most untrustworthy individual is our PM.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Yes, it would depend a lot on how decisive the result was. In many ways the position would be very similar to that of Labour in 1975; in that case, the result was sufficiently decisive (67.2% Yes) that it effectively shut down the issue, and implacable opponents such as Tony Benn accepted the result with good grace.
If the result were close it might be more difficult. But I expect the result would be a decisive majority in favour of staying in. Anyway, the boil has to be lanced some time.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
I genuinely fear for our politics. We have a Labour party that seems to have learned nothing from the worst economic disaster in a century. Against them we have a tory party that has been virtually ungovernable for more than 30 years and is also self indulgent beyond belief.
The tories have forgotten what party politics is all about. They are instead obsessed with issues and are completely uninhibited in the way that they are willing to show splits, disgreements and to tick off large tranches of potential voters. It is more important to win the argument than to win power, to be "right" than actually have influence on the result or the path forward. Compromise is the enemy, not Labour.
Cameron has done an amazing job in trying to keep this bunch of eccentrics and nutters together and all he gets for it is abuse and cries of betrayal. Are we really going to have to go through 10 or 15 more years of Labour destruction before the tories get the message? Are they even capable of understanding it?
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
No, I think that is a misreading. If we get a Conservative-led government in 2015 and hence get a referendum, it is inconceivable that Conservative MPs, ministers and members would be required to campaign on one side or the other. As with the Labour government in the EEC referendum of 1975, they would be free to campaign on either side. (More recently, this was Labour's position in the AV referendum as well).
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Hollande has rebuffed Cammo on the EU, which is no surprise to me or most of us on PB. I wonder why cammo thought he had an understanding with the French: or is it that he hoped for this outcome all along?
If anybody still thinks the Cammo will go forward with a referendum on the EU - even if elected - let them think again. A most untrustworthy individual is our PM.
So is the leader of the opposition.
CCHQ Press Office @CCHQPress 7 mins .@Ed_Miliband clearly desires Labour peers to kill #LetBritainDecide Bill in Lords today. Epic "Milibustering" from Labour's Lord Anderson..
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Yes, it would depend a lot on how decisive the result was. In many ways the position would be very similar to that of Labour in 1975; in that case, the result was sufficiently decisive (67.2% Yes) that it effectively shut down the issue, and implacable opponents such as Tony Benn accepted the result with good grace.
If the result were close it might be more difficult. But I expect the result would be a decisive decision to stay in. Anyway, the boil has to be lanced some time.
I wonder what would happen to UKIP if we had a referendum and decided to stay IN? Would they slink away and wind up. Or would they turn into a "real" conservative party, trying to bring back the 50's or whenever.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Yes, it would depend a lot on how decisive the result was. In many ways the position would be very similar to that of Labour in 1975; in that case, the result was sufficiently decisive (67.2% Yes) that it effectively shut down the issue, and implacable opponents such as Tony Benn accepted the result with good grace.
If the result were close it might be more difficult. But I expect the result would be a decisive decision to stay in. Anyway, the boil has to be lanced some time.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Yes, it would depend a lot on how decisive the result was. In many ways the position would be very similar to that of Labour in 1975; in that case, the result was sufficiently decisive (67.2% Yes) that it effectively shut down the issue, and implacable opponents such as Tony Benn accepted the result with good grace.
If the result were close it might be more difficult. But I expect the result would be a decisive decision to stay in. Anyway, the boil has to be lanced some time.
I wonder what would happen to UKIP if we had a referendum and decided to stay IN? Would they slink away and wind up. Or would they turn into a "real" conservative party, trying to bring back the 50's or whenever.
Lets see what happens to the SNP after their referendum....
An in/out EU referendum is a terrible idea. The worst thing would be to have one and then lose it. And it would be lost (prob 60/40) because it'd be too easy to scare enough floaters into supporting the status quo. That would kill-off any chance of reform for at least 15 years.
Any sensible eurosceptic with their heads screwed on would be against it.
I wonder what would happen to UKIP if we had a referendum and decided to stay IN? Would they slink away and wind up. Or would they turn into a "real" conservative party, trying to bring back the 50's or whenever.
The latter. In fact they already have, because if they really wanted us to leave the EU they'd be urging supporters to vote Conservative to get the referendum, and taking advantage of the three year gap to reorganize themselves as a really focused Out campaign in association with prominent Eurosceptics like Dan Hannan. That would be their best chance in a generation to take us out of the EU. That they are not doing this is very telling.
Global Warming: humans are very probably having some effect; yet our understanding is incredibly limited. TSE's link to that Independent piece is very funny but at the same time illustrates the issue - we've been wrong before, in the relatively recent past, about climate and it's pretty arrogant to assume that the latest models are correct now.
I'd also argue that it's pretty clear that the science has become politicised (the IPCC being the worst example) and subject to confirmation bias.
Our own politicians' attempts at climate change are pretty horrible to watch: see both yesterday's sketch by Simon Carr and also the disturbing reliance on using specific instances of freak weather to press their points (a couple guilty of this on QT yesterday; Cameron's done the same from the dispatch box). The attraction is clearly in making the issue more relatable to the common man but it's a shocking way to proceed.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
You're conflating two different issues there. What's happened in the past (and what explains it), and what might happen in the future.
The former is very well understood, and is as settled as science gets (at least the fundamentals, that human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet)
The latter is indeed uncertain.
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
According to the Guardian (I have no comment on the science, because I only read about it in the newspapers!) water vapour caused 1/3 of warming in the 1990s. According to the BBC, methane produces 21x as much warming of CO2 and accounts for 20% of enhanced global warming. Two-thirds of methane comes from man-made sources.
On Europe, one columnist I read pointed out that, in arguing on the issue, the tories are only giving encouragement to their European opponents.
I'm sure many countries are thinking that, if they can only hold firm for a year or so, labour will win and the issue will have gone for five years at least.
CCHQ Press Office @CCHQPress 3 mins Crazy 'suntan' amendments from Labour - now demanding reports (doubtless with 'fact finding' trips) to EVERY country in Commonwealth #EUref
One further thought today. Looking back at yesterday, I think the Tories would be unmanageable if going through an EU referendum. You'd risk all-out civil war, permanent splits, defections en masse, and it's hard to see how any coalition with them could survive.
No, I think that is a misreading. If we get a Conservative-led government in 2015 and hence get a referendum, it is inconceivable that Conservative MPs, ministers and members would be required to campaign on one side or the other. As with the Labour government in the EEC referendum of 1975, they would be free to campaign on either side. (More recently, this was Labour's position in the AV referendum as well).
If Cameron as PM ended up on the losing side, I would expect that he would resign and that a prominent figure on the winning side would take over in order to implement the wishes of the electorate.
Thanks Richard. Do you really think the Tory party could live with itself afterwards, particularly if it was a close IN result? It looks to me like the OUTers would forever call the others traitors who threw away the country's sovereignty etc. It just seems to me that this matters much more to the Tories than AV did for Labour, and that all restraint is lost when the Tories are let loose on each other over Europe.
Hollande has rebuffed Cammo on the EU, which is no surprise to me or most of us on PB. I wonder why cammo thought he had an understanding with the French: or is it that he hoped for this outcome all along?
If anybody still thinks the Cammo will go forward with a referendum on the EU - even if elected - let them think again. A most untrustworthy individual is our PM.
You are misremembering the facts to fit your prejudices.
France was always opposed - it's Germany that Cameron is working on.
And there is no causal link between opposition from one country to a treaty reform and Cameron going or not going ahead with a referendum.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
Water vapour is the most important gas stopping us freezing in outer space (this being the greenhouse effect).
But it's irrelevant in the context of the warming trend, because any excess simply rains, whereas C02 goes up there and stays there.
CO2 is heavier than air. Why on earth would it "stay up there"?
Labour Party candidates the furthest away from their supporters on issues
Werent the like of Owen Jones trying to say it was Ukip that had this problem?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 31/01/2014 12:55 As you can see, on ideology and migration #Labour have problems (by Michael Thrasher at Plymouth) --> pic.twitter.com/qWVnzqvBG2
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 31/01/2014 12:57 Suggests Labour are/will have problems persuading voters to follow their line, while #Ukip candidate views are closer to their own voters
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
Water vapour is the most important gas stopping us freezing in outer space (this being the greenhouse effect).
But it's irrelevant in the context of the warming trend, because any excess simply rains, whereas C02 goes up there and stays there.
CO2 is heavier than air. Why on earth would it "stay up there"?
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
Water vapour is the most important gas stopping us freezing in outer space (this being the greenhouse effect).
But it's irrelevant in the context of the warming trend, because any excess simply rains, whereas C02 goes up there and stays there.
CO2 is heavier than air. Why on earth would it "stay up there"?
As a trace gas yes, I agree. But the idea that all this extra CO2 is going into the upper atmosphere and absorbing lots of extra heat from the sun is not right. The vast majority of it is being dissolved into the oceans where it is causing major problems of acidification.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
Water vapour is the most important gas stopping us freezing in outer space (this being the greenhouse effect).
But it's irrelevant in the context of the warming trend, because any excess simply rains, whereas C02 goes up there and stays there.
Excess over what? are you claiming some sort of negative feedback mechanism? And have you not noticed that the fact that it has rained does not mean that it will never rain again?
You are right that water vapour is a bit of a red herring here but your reasons for thinking that could hardly be more wrong if they tried.
Sooner or later a big volcano is going to blow and throw everything out of kilter anyway :-)
Agree with you about the volcano though...
You do realise that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas?
And that (I believe) there is a reasonably theory that water vapour has more of an impact than all the greenhouse gases put together?
A more effective measure would be to fund (a) R&D into changing feedstuffs in industrialised agriculture so that animals produce less methane and (b) biodynamic methane capture systems on farms in developing countries to reprocess the methane into useable energy
Water vapour has played no real role in the warming trend (because, basically, it only stays up there for a few days before it rains!). The main driver of that has been increased CO2 concentrations.
Oh rly? You had better edit Wikipedia then.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17] Compound Formula Contribution (%) Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72% Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26% Methane CH 4 4 – 9% Ozone O 3 3 – 7%
Water vapour is the most important gas stopping us freezing in outer space (this being the greenhouse effect).
But it's irrelevant in the context of the warming trend, because any excess simply rains, whereas C02 goes up there and stays there.
CO2 is heavier than air. Why on earth would it "stay up there"?
Sort of. Diffusion is one of the reasons why we have 'air' as a mixture of gasses of different weights with no obvious stratification on a gas-by-gas basis. However at low levels (troposphere?) it is atmospheric motion causing the mixing; iirc it is diffusion higher up nearer space.
All from memory, so beware ...
Time for a strong Brownian Motion producer, methinks... ;-)
Charles - the main focus is on CO2 because it's the most significant cause of the warming trend. Methane isn't insignificant though, I agree.
All I'm trying to do here is point out that the fundamentals of global warming (that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases caused by human activity have warmed the planet) are indeed as settled as science gets.
I'm deliberately not getting into what to do about it.
Comments
Werent the like of Owen Jones trying to say it was Ukip that had this problem?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
31/01/2014 12:55
As you can see, on ideology and migration #Labour have problems (by Michael Thrasher at Plymouth) --> pic.twitter.com/qWVnzqvBG2
Andy Flower is to leave his role as team director of the England cricket team, @BBCSport understands
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html
There's much more to say about this that can effectively be said on here, but I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. There is evidence pointing towards it, but that evidence is far from compelling to me atm.
It's like a court case: some evidence has been placed in front of us that a crime may have been committed, and that there may have been any number of people responsible. You have looked at the evidence and decided on the culprit. I'm a lot less certain - you may well be right - but it may be others or worse, a gang crime with many different perpetrators.
You're calling the jury in too early.
I wonder why cammo thought he had an understanding with the French: or is it that he hoped for this outcome all along?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25972302
If anybody still thinks the Cammo will go forward with a referendum on the EU - even if elected - let them think again. A most untrustworthy individual is our PM.
"That's correlation, not causation."
There are many examples of those being confused, and that's usually when politics enters the fray and science takes a back seat.
The "precautionary principle" then rears it's head - perhaps we should do something ... just in case.
You can never prove something by correlation, no matter how attractive it seems. Otherwise we'd be banning ice-cream vans to reduce drowning deaths.
If you cannot predict based on your hypothesis, it's not science, and so it cannot be settled.
It may be right .... it may be wrong.
If the result were close it might be more difficult. But I expect the result would be a decisive majority in favour of staying in. Anyway, the boil has to be lanced some time.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17]
Compound
Formula
Contribution
(%)
Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72%
Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26%
Methane CH
4 4 – 9%
Ozone O
3 3 – 7%
I genuinely fear for our politics. We have a Labour party that seems to have learned nothing from the worst economic disaster in a century. Against them we have a tory party that has been virtually ungovernable for more than 30 years and is also self indulgent beyond belief.
The tories have forgotten what party politics is all about. They are instead obsessed with issues and are completely uninhibited in the way that they are willing to show splits, disgreements and to tick off large tranches of potential voters. It is more important to win the argument than to win power, to be "right" than actually have influence on the result or the path forward. Compromise is the enemy, not Labour.
Cameron has done an amazing job in trying to keep this bunch of eccentrics and nutters together and all he gets for it is abuse and cries of betrayal. Are we really going to have to go through 10 or 15 more years of Labour destruction before the tories get the message? Are they even capable of understanding it?
The country deserves better, a lot better.
CCHQ Press Office @CCHQPress 7 mins
.@Ed_Miliband clearly desires Labour peers to kill #LetBritainDecide Bill in Lords today. Epic "Milibustering" from Labour's Lord Anderson..
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking
Andy Flower is to leave his role as team director of the England cricket team, @BBCSport understands
The Tories always used to opine that referenda were undermining of parliamentary sovereignty, but I think even MPs do not believe in that any more.
Any sensible eurosceptic with their heads screwed on would be against it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/methane.shtml
I'll accept there is probably little we can do about water vapour. But why the focus on CO2 rather than methane?
I'm sure many countries are thinking that, if they can only hold firm for a year or so, labour will win and the issue will have gone for five years at least.
Crazy 'suntan' amendments from Labour - now demanding reports (doubtless with 'fact finding' trips) to EVERY country in Commonwealth #EUref
France was always opposed - it's Germany that Cameron is working on.
And there is no causal link between opposition from one country to a treaty reform and Cameron going or not going ahead with a referendum.
31/01/2014 12:57
Suggests Labour are/will have problems persuading voters to follow their line, while #Ukip candidate views are closer to their own voters
"No. All the other suspects have been cross-examined and found to have rock solid alibis."
Apart from "rock-solid alibis" which is nonsense ...
Lord Kelvin famously said ... ""There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
This quote, of course, pre-dated relativity and quantum uncertainty which completely revolutionised the subject.
And of course, ulcers had nothing to do with Helicobacter, did they?
You are right that water vapour is a bit of a red herring here but your reasons for thinking that could hardly be more wrong if they tried.
All from memory, so beware ...
Time for a strong Brownian Motion producer, methinks... ;-)
He was gone two hours after that prediction.
All hail PB's tipster of the year 2014.
My Six Nations piece should be going up this evening.