Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I'm out of data until midnight tonight. I could pay the f****** at EE for more data to pay for goods electronically, or I could just use the cards in my wallet for free.
Apple Pay. Apple does not require an internet connection or cellular data because it uses NFC technology to complete payment transactions.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
A 9 degree increase in certain locations, such as Greenland. The change in the global average temperature was, of course, far less than this.
Nope. Globally it is calculated at around 7 degrees so very much the same ball park.
Citation needed.
Go read about Speleothem records around the world and also the basic science of Terminations. The end of the Younger Dryas is by no means unique and very rapid changes are now recognised as being the norm rather than the exception in the climate record.
"The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998). Most of the changes in wind-blown materials and some other climate indicators were accomplished in a few years (Alley et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993; Hammer et al., 1997). Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years (Severinghaus et al., 1998), and changes were very abrupt in at least some regions (Bard et al., 1987), e.g. requiring as little as 10 years off Venezuela (Hughen et al., 1996). Fluctuations in ice conductivity indicate that atmospheric circulation was reorganised extremely rapidly (Taylor et al., 1993). A similar, correlated sequence of abrupt deglacial events also occurred in the tropical and temperate North Atlantic (Bard et al., 1987; Hughen et al., 1996) and in Western Europe (von Grafenstein et al., 1999)."
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
There are Congressional hearings coming up in the last week of July, supposedly. Either a lot of people are going to be very surprised, the hearings will be primarily not public, or not of the previously classified material, or a lot of very high-level people in the U.S military-governmental bureaucracy are going to be accused of spreading misinformation.
"Echoing Rubio, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, stated June 27 that “all sorts of [UFO whistleblowers] are coming out of the woodwork” and telling Congress that “they’ve been part of this or that [UFO] program.”
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
Bollocks, my main mobile number I've had since before iPhones existed.
It is so old, it used to belong to Cellnet.
Every time you browse a website using it the website grabs data from the device, it knows you are using a browser built on safari on a mobile device so it can extrapolate you are on an iphone with a strong degree of certainty
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
For the card carriers, the protocol is to drop your card on the table, leave it for contactless use by another of your party and then order a replacement via the banking app
(You do need to (i) trust your dining companions and (ii) not dine anywhere too expensive)
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
Bollocks, my main mobile number I've had since before iPhones existed.
It is so old, it used to belong to Cellnet.
Every time you browse a website using it the website grabs data from the device, it knows you are using a browser built on safari on a mobile device so it can extrapolate you are on an iphone with a strong degree of certainty
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
As so now you are carrying a phone, a battery pack, a charger and you think that is less onerous than a couple of £20 pound notes. Its a view I guess. In reality sooner or later your cashlessness is going to bite you in the butt and we are all going to laugh our heads off. I suspect you are just trying to grab onto supposed youth by being all down with technology yet don't really understand the downsides of that technology.
You do realise that most pubs have chargers behind the bar, for their, er, staff?
Your ludicrous cashless scenarios are almost as daft as your weird views on fish fingers.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
Was that local or global ?
If the AMOC were to shut down, we'd probably see a drop of similar proportions in Europe, on a similarly rapid timescale.
Yes, that's a good point. There is a danger that the current anthropogenically driven warming could be interrupted by further Younger Dryas type events as ocean currents shift in response to e.g. meltwater pulses. While our hunter-gather ancestors wouldn't have been too bothered by them, such events could devastate our modern, settled societies.
It's complicated. Of course the melting of the then huge icecaps would tend to lead to abrupt climate events. As the data we have is largely inferred, and even with the best evidence there's uncertainty of a few decades on precise local timings, it's much more uncertain modelling it than is the case with today's climate - where we have data points across the globe on an hourly basis.
Hmm. As far as dating goes we have a dendrochronology record accurate to 1 year going back 14,000 years. And since the trees can also provide a great deal of palaeo-climate data we have a time stamped data set for that period.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
As so now you are carrying a phone, a battery pack, a charger and you think that is less onerous than a couple of £20 pound notes. Its a view I guess. In reality sooner or later your cashlessness is going to bite you in the butt and we are all going to laugh our heads off. I suspect you are just trying to grab onto supposed youth by being all down with technology yet don't really understand the downsides of that technology.
You do realise that most pubs have chargers behind the bar, for their, er, staff?
Your ludicrous cashless scenarios are almost as daft as your weird views on fish fingers.
Shrugs just accept like everything else you say you are wrong on this, everyone knows it so not even going to bother engaging with you on it anymore
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
Was that local or global ?
If the AMOC were to shut down, we'd probably see a drop of similar proportions in Europe, on a similarly rapid timescale.
Yes, that's a good point. There is a danger that the current anthropogenically driven warming could be interrupted by further Younger Dryas type events as ocean currents shift in response to e.g. meltwater pulses. While our hunter-gather ancestors wouldn't have been too bothered by them, such events could devastate our modern, settled societies.
It's complicated. Of course the melting of the then huge icecaps would tend to lead to abrupt climate events. As the data we have is largely inferred, and even with the best evidence there's uncertainty of a few decades on precise local timings, it's much more uncertain modelling it than is the case with today's climate - where we have data points across the globe on an hourly basis.
Hmm. As far as dating goes we have a dendrochronology record accurate to 1 year going back 14,000 years. And since the trees can also provide a great deal of palaeo-climate data we have a time stamped data set for that period.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
Sure - but isn't there a little more uncertainty over speleothem dating ? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007869117 ...In contrast, the phasing relation of the YD termination between these regions appears to be the opposite. The breakpoint at ∼11,900 ± 80 B.P. in the WDC δ18O record occurs ∼200 ± 120 y before the initial termination of the Greenland YD at ∼11,700 ± 40 B.P. (Fig. 4). Other high-resolution Antarctic ice-core records are broadly consistent with the WDC record, except Dome Fuji, which does not show such a breakpoint around the YD termination (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The above phasing relation can be further tested by the WDC CH4 records on the same chronology (WD2014), due to a small uncertainty (±30 y) in the WDC ice–gas age difference (61) and a strong correlation between CH4 and AM/Greenland δ18O records (9, 63–65) controlled by the extent of wetlands and thus CH4 emissions (66). During the termination excursion, the breakpoint in the CH4 record is around 11,610 B.P., about 100 y later (rather than earlier) than the initial termination in AM and North Atlantic records. A closer look at these records reveals that the CH4 values were virtually invariant (∼500 parts per billion) during the YD between ∼12,620 and 11,610 B.P., while the AM and North Atlantic climate exhibited considerable centennial-scale oscillations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This apparent decoupling may explain the delayed CH4 termination rise from ∼11,610 to ∼11,480 B.P., which is closely coupled to the AM intensification significantly above the threshold of the mean YD value (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Additionally, the gradual centennial-scale AM intensification from ∼11,610 to ∼11,450 B.P. contrasts with the rather abrupt decadal-scale North Atlantic temperature jump at ∼11,610 B.P., suggesting an atmospheric role (10, 11, 46, 47) on decadal scales via coupled global atmospheric circulation, aforementioned SH changes (33, 34), and oceanic controls (7, 11, 42, 43) on centennial scales in driving the AM (and CH4) termination in response to the abrupt change in the northern high latitudes...
Climate Change Activists: It doesn't matter that the UK only produces less than 1% of CO2 emissions we must all change our lifestyles here in order to avoid catastrophe.
Also Climate Change Activists: My use of devices which have a carbon cost is tiny in the scheme of things so I'm going to carry on posting on PB and going on holiday and using my car (even though it's electric, as if that changes anything) as I see fit.
Some solutions you can only implement at the scale of the nation state, because that's how our economy and politics are organised.
That isn't hypocrisy.
Being critical of some aspects of the society you are part of is hypocrisy enough for some people - "I saw a climate protester buying food in McDonalds later" or whatever, as if only people who wear bark bonnets and live in a hole can take environmental action.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
Climate Change Activists: It doesn't matter that the UK only produces less than 1% of CO2 emissions we must all change our lifestyles here in order to avoid catastrophe.
Also Climate Change Activists: My use of devices which have a carbon cost is tiny in the scheme of things so I'm going to carry on posting on PB and going on holiday and using my car (even though it's electric, as if that changes anything) as I see fit.
Some solutions you can only implement at the scale of the nation state, because that's how our economy and politics are organised.
That isn't hypocrisy.
Being critical of some aspects of the society you are part of is hypocrisy enough for some people - "I saw a climate protester buying food in McDonalds later" or whatever, as if only people who wear bark bonnets and live in a hole can take environmental action.
The hypocrisy comes because most climate protestors seem to be people who don't exactly seem intent on reducing their carbon footprint while telling the rest of us we need to even when often our carbon footprint is smaller. CF Emma thompson
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
So what other than Co2 production do you postulate for the recent rise?
We don't know because we don't yet have a good enough understanding of the way the atmosphere works. I am not saying it is not CO2 but as a basic point of scientific principle you can only assign a definite cause once you have eliminated all other possible causes. And since we don't know what caused the Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval warming periods either but we do know it wasn't burning hydrocarbons, it is scientifically illiterate to assign a single cause to the current situation. (It was Michael Mann's idiotic attempts to eliminate any previous post glacial warming from the record that made me first look at this)
As I have said in the past, my interest in arguing this is rather limited because I actually like what we are doing in terms of changing our energy production for reasons entirely unconnected with any climate effects. We should not be burning hydrocarbons (though we should still be drilling for them for other uses). So it is rather churlish of me to argue against something I am generally quite happy with. But once in a while it is nice to set the record straight on the underlying science (such as rates of change) particularly when being stated as fact by people who don't actually know what they are talking about.
Frankly, your apparent conflation of local and global changes would seem to indicate that it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Ah another one who believes the discredited rubbish about past warming periods being local rater than global. In spite of the fact that Mann had to drop that claim when so many of his fellow climate scientists - who do argue for AGW - told him he was bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
I only have tickets on my iPhone, Apple Watch, and iPad,
When I'm on the train I usually have all three.
I'm dual sim as well, if EE goes down I have o2 as a back up.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
So what other than Co2 production do you postulate for the recent rise?
We don't know because we don't yet have a good enough understanding of the way the atmosphere works. I am not saying it is not CO2 but as a basic point of scientific principle you can only assign a definite cause once you have eliminated all other possible causes. And since we don't know what caused the Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval warming periods either but we do know it wasn't burning hydrocarbons, it is scientifically illiterate to assign a single cause to the current situation. (It was Michael Mann's idiotic attempts to eliminate any previous post glacial warming from the record that made me first look at this)
As I have said in the past, my interest in arguing this is rather limited because I actually like what we are doing in terms of changing our energy production for reasons entirely unconnected with any climate effects. We should not be burning hydrocarbons (though we should still be drilling for them for other uses). So it is rather churlish of me to argue against something I am generally quite happy with. But once in a while it is nice to set the record straight on the underlying science (such as rates of change) particularly when being stated as fact by people who don't actually know what they are talking about.
Frankly, your apparent conflation of local and global changes would seem to indicate that it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Ah another one who believes the discredited rubbish about past warming periods being local rater than global. In spite of the fact that Mann had to drop that claim when so many of his fellow climate scientists - who do argue for AGW - told him he was bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
I'm thinking about doing a cashless society thread for Sunday.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
Bollocks, my main mobile number I've had since before iPhones existed.
It is so old, it used to belong to Cellnet.
Mine is an old One-2-One number, which might even predate yours!
Realised recently that some of my work colleagues are younger than my mobile number.
I should think they are younger than 07752 543678.
Out of curiousity I rang that number....why did you give us the number of a young lady of eastern european origin offering services? While I am sure Krinsta is delightful should you have posted her number?
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
Was that local or global ?
If the AMOC were to shut down, we'd probably see a drop of similar proportions in Europe, on a similarly rapid timescale.
Yes, that's a good point. There is a danger that the current anthropogenically driven warming could be interrupted by further Younger Dryas type events as ocean currents shift in response to e.g. meltwater pulses. While our hunter-gather ancestors wouldn't have been too bothered by them, such events could devastate our modern, settled societies.
It's complicated. Of course the melting of the then huge icecaps would tend to lead to abrupt climate events. As the data we have is largely inferred, and even with the best evidence there's uncertainty of a few decades on precise local timings, it's much more uncertain modelling it than is the case with today's climate - where we have data points across the globe on an hourly basis.
Hmm. As far as dating goes we have a dendrochronology record accurate to 1 year going back 14,000 years. And since the trees can also provide a great deal of palaeo-climate data we have a time stamped data set for that period.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
Sure - but isn't there a little more uncertainty over speleothem dating ? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007869117 ...In contrast, the phasing relation of the YD termination between these regions appears to be the opposite. The breakpoint at ∼11,900 ± 80 B.P. in the WDC δ18O record occurs ∼200 ± 120 y before the initial termination of the Greenland YD at ∼11,700 ± 40 B.P. (Fig. 4). Other high-resolution Antarctic ice-core records are broadly consistent with the WDC record, except Dome Fuji, which does not show such a breakpoint around the YD termination (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The above phasing relation can be further tested by the WDC CH4 records on the same chronology (WD2014), due to a small uncertainty (±30 y) in the WDC ice–gas age difference (61) and a strong correlation between CH4 and AM/Greenland δ18O records (9, 63–65) controlled by the extent of wetlands and thus CH4 emissions (66). During the termination excursion, the breakpoint in the CH4 record is around 11,610 B.P., about 100 y later (rather than earlier) than the initial termination in AM and North Atlantic records. A closer look at these records reveals that the CH4 values were virtually invariant (∼500 parts per billion) during the YD between ∼12,620 and 11,610 B.P., while the AM and North Atlantic climate exhibited considerable centennial-scale oscillations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This apparent decoupling may explain the delayed CH4 termination rise from ∼11,610 to ∼11,480 B.P., which is closely coupled to the AM intensification significantly above the threshold of the mean YD value (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Additionally, the gradual centennial-scale AM intensification from ∼11,610 to ∼11,450 B.P. contrasts with the rather abrupt decadal-scale North Atlantic temperature jump at ∼11,610 B.P., suggesting an atmospheric role (10, 11, 46, 47) on decadal scales via coupled global atmospheric circulation, aforementioned SH changes (33, 34), and oceanic controls (7, 11, 42, 43) on centennial scales in driving the AM (and CH4) termination in response to the abrupt change in the northern high latitudes...
That isprimarily to do with a distinct break between northern and southern hemisphere circulations. Basically at both ends of the YD there is a rapid change in one hemisphere followed by a similar but slightly later rapid change in the other. They are mirror images of each other. But the overall result is still a change far more rapid than we are seeing here.
Also worth pointing out that some of the Chinese results have been questioned especially by South American reearchers who see a much closer link between South American and North Atlantic timings. It is an ongoing and at times somewhat acrimonious dispute.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
What? Surely the whole idea of backups is you keep them a good long way off?
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
I'm thinking about doing a cashless society thread for Sunday.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
Where did I speak of this? You don't need phone coverage to pay with your phone!
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
What? Surely the whole idea of backups is you keep them a good long way off?
I know.
The logic was if the original server went down it would be easier to switch to the back ups.
Totally unrelated (and I mean that genuinely) read up on the 2018 TSB banking system crash.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
This Monday.
Even if I believe you - which given the way you're behaving I'm not sure I do - how far?
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
What? Surely the whole idea of backups is you keep them a good long way off?
Their silence in condemning the foolish deserves punishment.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
Where did I speak of this? You don't need phone coverage to pay with your phone!
You need a signal to make a bank transfer. Which is what you suggested Sandy do.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
What? Surely the whole idea of backups is you keep them a good long way off?
I know.
The logic was if the original server went down it would be easier to switch to the back ups.
Totally unrelated (and I mean that genuinely) read up on the 2018 TSB banking system crash.
Heh, I see climate change discussion still ongoing
On a completely unrelated note, I've just come across a rather lovely instrumental cover of Hallelujah, which reminds me of my childhood dissapointment at being denied a violin and violin lessons (I was offered a classical guitar, plus lessons - like my brother - which I declined). I later became reasonably adept at keyboard (and ok-ish at piano, although I've never owned a piano) but my violinist dream remains frustrated. Maybe some day...
Pretty certain I remember discussing it with Richard on here in 2014. Climate change that is, not the song.
Four council by elections last night: In Rotherham, the Conservatives successfully defended their seat. In Newham, Labour held one, but lost the other to an Independent. In Norfolk, the Greens gained a seat from the Cons.
Good Week/Bad Week Index:
Grn +47 LDm +8 Lab +2 Con -62
Until the Norfolk result came in this morning, Cons were leading with +29, Lab +5, LD +0, Grn -9 - so Depwade turned everything on its head! A dreadful -91 for the Cons there, and +55 for the Greens. Newham's two results were almost exactly a wash: (Boleyn ward first) Cons -12 and +15, Lab -39 and +37, Grn +5 and -5.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a cheeky dig at three unnamed and unidentifiable individuals cited by an anonymous internet account is not libel.
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
I'm thinking about doing a cashless society thread for Sunday.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
I only have tickets on my iPhone, Apple Watch, and iPad,
When I'm on the train I usually have all three.
I'm dual sim as well, if EE goes down I have o2 as a back up.
I have a phone and watch (the latter has awesome battery life and its own SIM).
It's almost as if the developers have thought about possible pitfalls of the cash-free life and overcome them.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
Was that local or global ?
If the AMOC were to shut down, we'd probably see a drop of similar proportions in Europe, on a similarly rapid timescale.
Yes, that's a good point. There is a danger that the current anthropogenically driven warming could be interrupted by further Younger Dryas type events as ocean currents shift in response to e.g. meltwater pulses. While our hunter-gather ancestors wouldn't have been too bothered by them, such events could devastate our modern, settled societies.
It's complicated. Of course the melting of the then huge icecaps would tend to lead to abrupt climate events. As the data we have is largely inferred, and even with the best evidence there's uncertainty of a few decades on precise local timings, it's much more uncertain modelling it than is the case with today's climate - where we have data points across the globe on an hourly basis.
Hmm. As far as dating goes we have a dendrochronology record accurate to 1 year going back 14,000 years. And since the trees can also provide a great deal of palaeo-climate data we have a time stamped data set for that period.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
Sure - but isn't there a little more uncertainty over speleothem dating ? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007869117 ...In contrast, the phasing relation of the YD termination between these regions appears to be the opposite. The breakpoint at ∼11,900 ± 80 B.P. in the WDC δ18O record occurs ∼200 ± 120 y before the initial termination of the Greenland YD at ∼11,700 ± 40 B.P. (Fig. 4). Other high-resolution Antarctic ice-core records are broadly consistent with the WDC record, except Dome Fuji, which does not show such a breakpoint around the YD termination (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The above phasing relation can be further tested by the WDC CH4 records on the same chronology (WD2014), due to a small uncertainty (±30 y) in the WDC ice–gas age difference (61) and a strong correlation between CH4 and AM/Greenland δ18O records (9, 63–65) controlled by the extent of wetlands and thus CH4 emissions (66). During the termination excursion, the breakpoint in the CH4 record is around 11,610 B.P., about 100 y later (rather than earlier) than the initial termination in AM and North Atlantic records. A closer look at these records reveals that the CH4 values were virtually invariant (∼500 parts per billion) during the YD between ∼12,620 and 11,610 B.P., while the AM and North Atlantic climate exhibited considerable centennial-scale oscillations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This apparent decoupling may explain the delayed CH4 termination rise from ∼11,610 to ∼11,480 B.P., which is closely coupled to the AM intensification significantly above the threshold of the mean YD value (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Additionally, the gradual centennial-scale AM intensification from ∼11,610 to ∼11,450 B.P. contrasts with the rather abrupt decadal-scale North Atlantic temperature jump at ∼11,610 B.P., suggesting an atmospheric role (10, 11, 46, 47) on decadal scales via coupled global atmospheric circulation, aforementioned SH changes (33, 34), and oceanic controls (7, 11, 42, 43) on centennial scales in driving the AM (and CH4) termination in response to the abrupt change in the northern high latitudes...
That isprimarily to do with a distinct break between northern and southern hemisphere circulations. Basically at both ends of the YD there is a rapid change in one hemisphere followed by a similar but slightly later rapid change in the other. They are mirror images of each other. But the overall result is still a change far more rapid than we are seeing here.
Also worth pointing out that some of the Chinese results have been questioned especially by South American reearchers who see a much closer link between South American and North Atlantic timings. It is an ongoing and at times somewhat acrimonious dispute.
That's what I meant by the timings being a bit blurry compared with today.
The global air temperature change was certainly dramatic, whether it was over a decade or so, or in the order of a century. The phase change of such huge masses of water likely accounts for that ? But if course the proximate cause of that was likely the change in atmospheric gas composition, as with today.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
I'm thinking about doing a cashless society thread for Sunday.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
Four council by elections last night: In Rotherham, the Conservatives successfully defended their seat. In Newham, Labour held one, but lost the other to an Independent. In Norfolk, the Greens gained a seat from the Cons.
Good Week/Bad Week Index:
Grn +47 LDm +8 Lab +2 Con -62
Until the Norfolk result came in this morning, Cons were leading with +29, Lab +5, LD +0, Grn -9 - so Depwade turned everything on its head! A dreadful -91 for the Cons there, and +55 for the Greens. Newham's two results were almost exactly a wash: (Boleyn ward first) Cons -12 and +15, Lab -39 and +37, Grn +5 and -5.
The Newham result has some very specific local factionalism stuff going on, I think.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
I'm with Sandy here. Doing almost anything via an app is a massive faff, money in particular.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Why would your technophobic friend buy you a drink after you have been extolling the cash free society.....he would be drinking his beer with relish and saying suck it up sugar
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not surprising, if you don't travel in the real world where cash is needed.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
RBS too - but they are the same bank effectively(or rather have merged systems, not always the same thing).
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
The RBS app which is the same as the NatWest app allows you to set up a new payee via Face ID/passcode.
FFS. I think even the curtain-twitching Huw Edwards gossip was marginally more interesting than the repetitive 'cash' discussion, though it's a close call.
I'm thinking about doing a cashless society thread for Sunday.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not really, you don't seem to understand how precautionary behaviour works. I wear a helmet on a bicycle, and refrain from smoking, despite never having witnessed a cycling headwound or a death from lung cancer. It's very odd.
I find the idea of a technology fan who doesn’t understand the concept of backup options…. Interesting.
I do hope he's not in charge of any online banking systems!
I am.
Kinda.
Are you responsible for the backups?
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Yes but only insofar as testing the system of back ups. One bank who shall rename nameless kept their backups next to their servers, so if there was a fire...
I only have tickets on my iPhone, Apple Watch, and iPad,
When I'm on the train I usually have all three.
I'm dual sim as well, if EE goes down I have o2 as a back up.
I have a phone and watch (the latter has awesome battery life and its own SIM).
It's almost as if the developers have thought about possible pitfalls of the cash-free life and overcome them.
Weird.
How much does this watch cost? Asking for a friend.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
This Monday.
Even if I believe you - which given the way you're behaving I'm not sure I do - how far?
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I was on the Settle-Carlisle line on Monday and all the tickets were QR codes on both my watch and phone.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Why would your technophobic friend buy you a drink after you have been extolling the cash free society.....he would be drinking his beer with relish and saying suck it up sugar
Because we’re both adults and can laugh at ourselves!
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Why would your technophobic friend buy you a drink after you have been extolling the cash free society.....he would be drinking his beer with relish and saying suck it up sugar
I clearly attract a better class of/more forgiving friend
FWIW, I'm still a card person - but simply because I haven't seen the clear benefits of the phone option to switch wholesale, no real objection. Few cards in a slimfold wallet, often with a single note in there for emergencies and the barber. I don't find carrying the cards a hassle - I have to carry work ID/lock card anyway - and I don't see any real time saving in phone contactless versus card contactless. I do have my cards set up on my phone, so outside work I could just take phone, but haven't yet broken the wallet habit.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
The RBS app which is the same as the NatWest app allows you to set up a new payee via Face ID/passcode.
If terrorists want to act and still get sympathy and emp pulse in central london would do the trick, few lives lost but no on can get home as their phones are fried
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Not surprising, if you don't travel in the real world where cash is needed.
Oddly I go all over the place, city, countryside, wilds, foreign lands.
I always use the little keypad thingy to log in to online banking. I keep getting asked if I have tried some other faffy way to do it but always ignore this message. And I only ever use a tablet or laptop for banking, not a phone.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
My wife is NatWest and she doesn't need or even have a keypad. The app doesn't require it.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
I'm with Sandy here. Doing almost anything via an app is a massive faff, money in particular.
Takes about 90 seconds, a tiny fraction of the time taken to faff around visiting an ATM.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Why would your technophobic friend buy you a drink after you have been extolling the cash free society.....he would be drinking his beer with relish and saying suck it up sugar
I clearly attract a better class of/more forgiving friend
FWIW, I'm still a card person - but simply because I haven't seen the clear benefits of the phone option to switch wholesale, no real objection. Few cards in a slimfold wallet, often with a single note in there for emergencies and the barber. I don't find carrying the cards a hassle - I have to carry work ID/lock card anyway - and I don't see any real time saving in phone contactless versus card contactless. I do have my cards set up on my phone, so outside work I could just take phone, but haven't yet broken the wallet habit.
Still wondering how much this wallet costs to buy and run, compared with a watch with a humongous memory and a SIM of its own which can probably measure the H2S content of one's bowel emissions to 0.1 percentage points.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
I'm with Sandy here. Doing almost anything via an app is a massive faff, money in particular.
Takes about 90 seconds, a tiny fraction of the time taken to faff around visiting an ATM.
using an atm takes about 90 seconds and works over many transactions
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
Not by their app, according to the website (barring, perhaps, an occasional security check).
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
This Monday.
Even if I believe you - which given the way you're behaving I'm not sure I do - how far?
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I was on the Settle-Carlisle line on Monday and all the tickets were QR codes on both my watch and phone.
Not foolish, just the modern world.
When your QR code was scanned by the guard they made 2p commission.
You can also print off the e-ticket and show the guard the piece of paper. No risk of the battery running out on a piece of paper.
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
NatWest still require the card-reader thingy to add a new payee to your account (if you're using internet banking - not sure about their smartphone app since I don't use it). Personally I think that that is an excellent compromise between convenience and security.
Not that relevant, but my NW was Nationwide. I see the ambiguity!
At the time, I was living between two houses - mine and then girlfriend, now wife - and I never had the damn thing with me when I needed it. Lloyds policy of text or automated phone call (then, now the app sends a notification, you provide fingerprint and you're done) was more robust and convenient for me.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.
FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
Yes there's plenty wrong with it.
And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
When they ever did get someone from ‘the other side’, it would be a flat Earth fanatic rather than another scientist.
That may have been only partly their fault. FEFs so not have careers which they would endanger by voicing private doubts.
Which is actually a large part of the problem, that all the scientific research funding is on one side.
The scientific research funding follows the scientific evidence.
The vested interest funding, well there's been plenty of that for climate 'sceptics'. And probably much more lucrative for those involved.
(I do find the idea of funding bias bizarre. It's in no government's interest to fund only one side of climate science, if there were really two sides. Climate science as it stands is a massive headache for governments - it means taxing/regulating things that people like, in really unpopular areas. There's a massive incentive for governments to fund any science that would question the IPCC conclusions - making it all go away would solve a whole load of political problems. Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that - you can't just get the answers you want because if you do other people are going to point out what you've done and it's easy* for other groups to check)
*in most areas. Far less so in my field of epidemiology where we cannot share or publish the patient-level data for others to verify, due to entirely legitimate data protection concerns. Other groups could request the same data, but I'm not sure you'd get that far on public interest grounds to simply verify pre-existing research. We need more like openSAFELY where anyone can run their own code to check conclusions. This would be possible if e.g. NHS Digital had a service to hold copies of supplied data and run, on demand (at low fee) code on it and provide the results (there would still be a need to ensure no sensitive disclosure in analysis results, which is probably why this hasn't happened).
"Points" from someone whose head is obviously completely up the system.
The points about funding are definetely valid, even if they don't resolve the 'groupthink amongst academics' problem.
Yep, there's definite scope for problems there. One thing becomes accepted and everyone else takes it as read. We've seen that often enough - but we've seen that often enough because eventually someone shows that's not how things work afterall.
Again, I'm long out of this field and wasn't that closely involved to start with, but I saw a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on how the feedbacks worked and interacted. Plenty of 'out there' ideas being presented where if thing A works differently to the general perception then thing B will happen and we can test that witthin 5-10 years etc. I think there are enough people with different backgrounds in different centres studying data from different sources with different designs to reduce the risk of too much groupthink here.
I may be wrong, of course and maybe there are more people training in 'climate science' at a lower level and being taught 'truths'. The nice thing 15 years ago, which may or may not still be the case, was that climate research was brining together people from a lot of disparate disciplines with different ideas and, in most cases, not a great deal of formal training in any accepted truth of the field. The main danger was that most people on the modelling side were working on a limited number of base models, so a fundamental error in one base model could lead to errors in many people's research. But, if so, there would be a whole lot of research that quickly diverged from new observations, unless you were really unlucky. There are also, of course, a lot of people not working on models at all, but working on comparing model predictions, forwards or backwards with observations on the ground and finding better ways of doing those observations.
My concern with it all is that right now, dissent is not allowed. We are at a stage whereby no one would put their heads above the parapet. Well that means that the overwhelming majority - thousands upon thousands - of climate scientists agree hence it is settled. But without going all Galileo about it is that we are in a period of absolute orthodoxy whereby dissenting views are simply not entertained.
No one disputes that the temperatures are rising but it is modelling that is telling us what happens next. Is it like cigarettes where a link has been shown to exist? Not being a climate scientist I have no idea.
I just feel uncomfortable that there is no Jeremy Paxman ("why is this lying bastard lying to me") to question it all. Are all those on here, for example, comfortable not wanting to question what is, in the end, a prediction based upon modelling and hence originates in the human mind.
This is a fantasy put around by right-wing commentators. As you say, no one disputes that temperatures are rising: the evidence there is unavoidable. That this is largely caused by human activity producing greenhouse gases is also very clear. But what happens next, however, is very much discussed and argued over. There is plenty of dissent. How different factors interact, how we should model future change, what’s the best approach to deal with the problem, all extensively debated.
However, the point is that temperatures are already up a worrying amount, so when that’s your starting point, whether things will get much worse or just slightly worse doesn’t change that they are already bad.
"The fantasy put about..."
LOL & QED
The world has warmed previously when presumably it wasn't on account of human activity. It is warming again now and that is coinciding with us pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it may well be that the current warming is due to us. But we don't know how much, nor exactly what effect it is having in total when other factors are taken into account.
For example, does warming lead to more evaporation and more cloud cover, reflecting more incident energy from the sun back into space? Does warming kill vegetation and increase desertification, which is also a better reflector of incident energy back into space than plants are?
We don't know the future, we model it. And we model it extremely diligently. But it is only a model and any model is only as good as its inputs. If I model a balance sheet for example I know that I can fiddle faddle, say, working capital requirements and associated fundraising requirements. All my own work.
And the thing which you are illustrating is how sad it is that today we all are supposed to accept the orthodoxy with dissenters chastised and ridiculed. We have of course been here before in history but let's not over-dramatise things, right, I mean we are only talking about extinction of the human race. Something that you, by your actions, btw, aren't all *that* bothered about.
All scientists can ever do is make predictions and see how well they turn out.
The predictions of the 1990 models didn't play out perfectly (+0.4 degrees compared with +0.55 degrees) but they are not far off. Close enough to be able to say that the big picture story is right and everything else is sorting out details.
How right do the scientists have to be for how long?
Yep good question. I don't know. In climate/geological terms of course 30 years is tiny but let's say that there was "natural" warming. (And cooling, such as the planet has seen for the past XXXXXXX years). What if the scientists are imposing their models on an existing trajectory ie making observations not predictions.
The key here is rate of change. Natural heating and cooling occurs in geological timescales*, while recent warming has occurred measurably over a matter of a few decades.
The fact half the C02 ever released into the atmosphere by mankind has been since I graduated Medical School, and 85% since WW2 ended may be the reason.
* barring massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact.
Not true. And this is one of the annoying 'facts' that has crept into the argument. Rates of change now are no different to those in the past. It is only in recent years we have come to realise that entry and exit from glaciations and other less extreme warming and cooling events can occur in decades rather than centuries. The ending of the Younger Dryas involved a 9 degree increase in temperature in just over a decade.
Was that local or global ?
If the AMOC were to shut down, we'd probably see a drop of similar proportions in Europe, on a similarly rapid timescale.
Yes, that's a good point. There is a danger that the current anthropogenically driven warming could be interrupted by further Younger Dryas type events as ocean currents shift in response to e.g. meltwater pulses. While our hunter-gather ancestors wouldn't have been too bothered by them, such events could devastate our modern, settled societies.
It's complicated. Of course the melting of the then huge icecaps would tend to lead to abrupt climate events. As the data we have is largely inferred, and even with the best evidence there's uncertainty of a few decades on precise local timings, it's much more uncertain modelling it than is the case with today's climate - where we have data points across the globe on an hourly basis.
Hmm. As far as dating goes we have a dendrochronology record accurate to 1 year going back 14,000 years. And since the trees can also provide a great deal of palaeo-climate data we have a time stamped data set for that period.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
Sure - but isn't there a little more uncertainty over speleothem dating ? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007869117 ...In contrast, the phasing relation of the YD termination between these regions appears to be the opposite. The breakpoint at ∼11,900 ± 80 B.P. in the WDC δ18O record occurs ∼200 ± 120 y before the initial termination of the Greenland YD at ∼11,700 ± 40 B.P. (Fig. 4). Other high-resolution Antarctic ice-core records are broadly consistent with the WDC record, except Dome Fuji, which does not show such a breakpoint around the YD termination (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The above phasing relation can be further tested by the WDC CH4 records on the same chronology (WD2014), due to a small uncertainty (±30 y) in the WDC ice–gas age difference (61) and a strong correlation between CH4 and AM/Greenland δ18O records (9, 63–65) controlled by the extent of wetlands and thus CH4 emissions (66). During the termination excursion, the breakpoint in the CH4 record is around 11,610 B.P., about 100 y later (rather than earlier) than the initial termination in AM and North Atlantic records. A closer look at these records reveals that the CH4 values were virtually invariant (∼500 parts per billion) during the YD between ∼12,620 and 11,610 B.P., while the AM and North Atlantic climate exhibited considerable centennial-scale oscillations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This apparent decoupling may explain the delayed CH4 termination rise from ∼11,610 to ∼11,480 B.P., which is closely coupled to the AM intensification significantly above the threshold of the mean YD value (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Additionally, the gradual centennial-scale AM intensification from ∼11,610 to ∼11,450 B.P. contrasts with the rather abrupt decadal-scale North Atlantic temperature jump at ∼11,610 B.P., suggesting an atmospheric role (10, 11, 46, 47) on decadal scales via coupled global atmospheric circulation, aforementioned SH changes (33, 34), and oceanic controls (7, 11, 42, 43) on centennial scales in driving the AM (and CH4) termination in response to the abrupt change in the northern high latitudes...
That isprimarily to do with a distinct break between northern and southern hemisphere circulations. Basically at both ends of the YD there is a rapid change in one hemisphere followed by a similar but slightly later rapid change in the other. They are mirror images of each other. But the overall result is still a change far more rapid than we are seeing here.
Also worth pointing out that some of the Chinese results have been questioned especially by South American reearchers who see a much closer link between South American and North Atlantic timings. It is an ongoing and at times somewhat acrimonious dispute.
That's what I meant by the timings being a bit blurry compared with today.
The global air temperature change was certainly dramatic, whether it was over a decade or so, or in the order of a century. The phase change of such huge masses of water likely accounts for that ? But if course the proximate cause of that was likely the change in atmospheric gas composition, as with today.
Well indeed. The YD and similar events are probably best regarded as consequences of the underlying climate shift. It does give pause for thought as to what possible discontinuities could arise as a consequence of the current extremely rapid underlying temperature change.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
Well that is a genuinely stupid comment since if you use contactless with a card you have to put it in and use your pin after a certain number of transactions or if the value is over £100.
So the answer is practically everyone.
Not stupid at all. There's no limit on NFC transactions – Apple or Google etc.
Cards are almost a pointless as cash.
A total waste of space.
It’s fine 99% of the time. Perhaps even 99.99% of the time. Until you come down off a mountain walk, when you realise your phone is dead because it’s spent all day with the radio turned up trying to find a signal, and you need to get a taxi back to base several miles away, and end up with a long walk. Bonus points if you can’t buy water on the way.
I do a lot of hiking.
There's this amazing innovation called a battery pack. Weighs very little and will charge a phone three times over.
Which doesn't help if the taxi broke down or there's no signal or the walk took 2 hours longer than expected. Taxi out, walk back.
A phone and a battery pack weighs many times what a debit card
Nick Palmer - About 1 in 4 American homes still have land lines. They are more common among the elderly -- no surprise -- and in the Northeast.
(Full disclosure: I have one, and like it enough so that I may keep it. I have a better phone than any smart phone I have seen. And, at almost 80 years old, I like the idea of having a back-up, in case of an emergency.)
Probably 3/4 here in the UK.
How do the others in US get internet?!
Hmm - depends how you define this one, I've got a landline in theory off my FTTP but no actual phone connected.
This is true for about a quarter of landlines.
The average talk time on a landline is 35 minutes per week, which should tell you everything you need to know.
The scam calls we get are mainly on our landline. Although, to be fair, we have had a few on our iPhones recently.
Iphone uses will always be a scammer target as they have already shown they have more money than sense
How on earth can the scammer tell whether you're iphone or android ?
You can buy lists of IPhone numbers, just like you can buy lists of any set of characteristics
How exactly are you going to call the cab if your phone is dead?
End points of hikes don't usually end in the middle of nowhere, they are normally in a village....you goto the nearest pub and ask them to call you a taxi....only I will have a pint while I wait because I can pay for it because I have money and a card....you will just have to sit there wishing you could have a beer assuming the pub will even call you a taxi if you aren't a customer of course
You do realise you can charge your phone in virtually all pubs?
I do LOTS of back country hiking. Your ludicrous scenarios to prove a silly point are somewhat undermined by the fact I haven't needed cash for TEN YEARS.
Where is this land of full network coverage and universal phone charging of which you speak?
South of the Watford Gap, north of Redhill. West of Epping and east of Feltham.
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
So inside the M25 plus along the M1 to Rugby? Sounds about right.
Signal is poor in our town centre. One minute the pub can accept cards and I for one am happy, the next the signal disappears and my technophobic friend is gloating.
Surely in that situation, your technophobic friend is paying which should limit the gloating?
Why would your technophobic friend buy you a drink after you have been extolling the cash free society.....he would be drinking his beer with relish and saying suck it up sugar
I clearly attract a better class of/more forgiving friend
FWIW, I'm still a card person - but simply because I haven't seen the clear benefits of the phone option to switch wholesale, no real objection. Few cards in a slimfold wallet, often with a single note in there for emergencies and the barber. I don't find carrying the cards a hassle - I have to carry work ID/lock card anyway - and I don't see any real time saving in phone contactless versus card contactless. I do have my cards set up on my phone, so outside work I could just take phone, but haven't yet broken the wallet habit.
Still wondering how much this wallet costs to buy and run, compared with a watch with a humongous memory and a SIM of its own which can probably measure the H2S content of one's bowel emissions to 0.1 percentage points.
About £4/year so far, but I'd expect that to drop to £2/year or less over lifetime
But, you know what? I don't care. I carry a wallet with cards, hardly ever use cash. Some people prefer just a phone, some people cash. Everyone can do what they want.
Such distributed operating models also were used by NATO members during the Cold War. But the extra costs imposed by such a strategy, including the need for additional spares and trained maintainers, have driven many air forces to focus on optimizing the efficiency of main operating bases.
The costs of distributed operations have risen with the increasing sophistication of frontline aircraft, such as Typhoons and F-35Bs.
The demonstrations are intended to reveal any gaps in the RAF’s ability to operate away from its main operating bases for short periods, Smyth said...
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
I'm with Sandy here. Doing almost anything via an app is a massive faff, money in particular.
The bus app here in toasty Valencia works like a charm.
So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?
I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.
Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.
I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.
As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.
As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.
Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.
Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.
It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
People who are used to the Mail or the Telegraph are used to right wing bias. Some of them think that's what neutral is. So when they hear the BBC, they don't hear right wing bias they're used to and assume the opposite.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
This Monday.
Even if I believe you - which given the way you're behaving I'm not sure I do - how far?
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I was on the Settle-Carlisle line on Monday and all the tickets were QR codes on both my watch and phone.
Not foolish, just the modern world.
When your QR code was scanned by the guard they made 2p commission.
You can also print off the e-ticket and show the guard the piece of paper. No risk of the battery running out on a piece of paper.
yeah, weirdly I have used e-tix for years and my phone has never run out. Now I have a watch too as a backup. You should try life without cash and stupid pieces of paper... it's liberating...
Anecdote: I went out for a meal last night. Ten of us. Time for my train. Dropped my cash on the table and left. Left it to everyone else to faff about with card machines, BACS transfers and whatever else they were up to to apportion the bill. Didn't miss my train!
You could just as easily transferred your share while on the train. Duh!
Hardly "just as easily". Searching out the payment details, entering a host of numbers into my device. Losing the wifi signal in the tunnel. Making sure I get it right after a few pints. And I don't tend to walk around with that little keypad thingy the bank sent me in my pocket.
Duh! You haven't needed the keypad to make a transfer for... about five years...
Nationwide requires it I think?
'twas the reason I switched my current account from NW to LLoyds back in the day. Lloyds were committed to not bringing in a little machine that you would never have with you when you needed it.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
I'm with Sandy here. Doing almost anything via an app is a massive faff, money in particular.
Takes about 90 seconds, a tiny fraction of the time taken to faff around visiting an ATM.
using an atm takes about 90 seconds and works over many transactions
Duh! You have to walk or drive to it. A complete waste of time.
Writing down you passcode, top level security.....the Chinese & Russians must piss themselves how moronic our officials are when it comes to basic op-sec.
All those claiming Boris Johnson to be a risk to national security wash your mouths out.
After 24 hours of waterboarding, the f***** wouldn't divulge his mobile phone PIN. Not least because he couldn't. Make him Foreign Secretary, and now!
Boris is definitely one of those people who uses the same password for every account and his phone pin is the same as credit card pin...with the failed thinking is ok because the password is some obscure latin or greek so nobody could guess it...
If all his accounts including credit cards are on one PIN and he's forgotten it, is that why he had to go to Richard Sharp to get some money?
Got to wonder where the Johnson story will go next. Thoughts of his running in a near-future by-election are nuts IMO, but the story's clearly not at an end yet.
Who even uses a PIN or ATM anymore for transactions? Both are obsolete. Use Apple Pay on phone or watch.
Boris must be a complete idiot if he persists in using cards.
ATM machines (just for @Selebian) I agree, but PINs I have all over the place.
I took an ATM card with me on my cycling trip, just in case. I have just employed a gardener and didn't know how he wanted to be paid so I used the card to get some cash, in case that was what he wanted (he doesn't). The card is a year out of date so it was lucky he was happy with a bank transfer and that I didn't need it on my trip.
Talking about cash (and @Anabobazina TRIGGER WARNING) I hadn't realised that HMG had had to change their bill to provide a little more protection for cash users.
"Previously the Bill did not specify whether withdrawal and deposit facilities should be free, or whether consumers might have to pay a charge.
But through a late amendment to the Bill, called for by Which?, it will now ensure that people across the country can withdraw and deposit cash for free.
This means the FCA will have greater power over major banks and building societies to ensure reasonable free access to cash is preserved for those who need it."
Do we have a view on cheques? I very rarely receive them, but have recently received quite a few (HMRC, TV licence, British Gas, Virgin, etc) in the settling my fathers estate. Don't know why that should be different to normal particularly as some organisations who had to pay me were happy with me providing my bank details. Very odd.
My wife commented that her last stub in her cheque book was dated 2016. I had to look for my cheque book and the last cheque I wrote was 2010.
One further thought. After my first experiences, I'd always have a separate executry account - not just for the obvious reason of not muddling money with mine, but also because some of the cheques were to 'Executors of A B Carnyx Decd" or various wordings.
I've obviously been very lucky. So far all cheques have been made out in my name. All went into my account and I'm just keeping a separate spreadsheet. Mostly gone very smoothly and better than I would have thought. A few lost documents and Gas/Electricity suppliers have been a pain in the arse, but the rest have been very good (Council, Water, HMRC, etc).
I know the feeling only too well!
I get the feeling that executry accounts are not as common as they were, partly for that reason, but there were enough payments specifically for that account for me to be very glad a coiuple of years back that I'd done a separate account which allowed payments in in the names of the executors and/or the deceased's estate.
I hope the house sale goes OK now - am slightly behind the times with how it is going?
Thank you. All done on Tuesday. I did post here because it was such a relief. A win/win in my book as the buyers have got a real bargain and are moving in from a rented house and I have got rid of it and I didn't mind taking a hit on it because I don't need the money, the market is rubbish and the house is in an appalling state. So quite a relief it is off my hands frankly. I did feel a bit odd the last time I left it. My father had been there 60 years.
One hiccup. I paid my sister half the funds (even though the estate isn't yet wound up) and I did that by CHAPs as the limit on faster payments would have meant it taking several days and I also wanted to move my element to interest bearing accounts also. The CHAPs payment went missing!!!! It was found later the next day and backdated, but quite a worry. It was held up for manual money laundering checks at my sister's bank but then forgotten about. If it had been my bank I would have been pretty annoyed.
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
I think you might need to read up on the libel laws. Making a dig at three unnamed individuals cited by an anony
I'll hazard a guess that anabobadingdong is not a fan of paper rail tickets either.
Again, a moronic idea. Why would you want to carry around a stupid piece of paper that is liable to get lost when you can just scan a QR code on your watch?
I once saw a man who thought the same as you did.
It was on a train from Shrewsbury to Cardiff.
The reason I found he'd got the ticket on his phone is that he'd dropped it and it had broken.
So he couldn't show a ticket.
He was then charged the full fare and a penalty fare.
Which he couldn't pay either as he always paid by phone so he had no cards or cash.
Which meant that at Church Stratton where the guard put him off the train he presumably found himself in something of a difficulty.
For that reason when travelling by train or plane by all means have your ticket on a phone, but a wise person has a paper copy too.
Do they now? Another daft fable. How many Londoners travel cashless every day, do you think?
You can hazard a wild guess to the nearest million.
That happened. So you can withdraw that remark about it being a fable.
And I'm not talking about London, in case you hadn't noticed. If Londoners travelling short distances don't take sensible precautions that's their problem, and I can imagine when you're only a couple of miles it isn't as important. Outside London, where you may be travelling several hundred miles, it's a bit different. London is not typical even if Londoners think the world revolves around them.
But if you keep your plane ticket on a phone when travelling, and fail to keep a paper copy, then you're a complete fool.
I only ever 'witness' such fables on PB, I never encounter them in real life.
It's very odd.
Has it occurred to that possibly that's because your life experience is so narrow?
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
This Monday.
Even if I believe you - which given the way you're behaving I'm not sure I do - how far?
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I was on the Settle-Carlisle line on Monday and all the tickets were QR codes on both my watch and phone.
Not foolish, just the modern world.
I’m sticking with ‘foolish.’ There are plenty of places where you get no signal on that line and if you’d slipped and fallen it doesn’t take much to damage both a watch and an IPhone.
But then, on this subject you are very foolish, bordering on the positively maniacal.
Comments
Next!
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/074.htm
Seems to support your position
It's very odd.
There are Congressional hearings coming up in the last week of July, supposedly. Either a lot of people are going to be very surprised, the hearings will be primarily not public, or not of the previously classified material, or a lot of very high-level people in the U.S military-governmental bureaucracy are going to be accused of spreading misinformation.
"Echoing Rubio, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, stated June 27 that “all sorts of [UFO whistleblowers] are coming out of the woodwork” and telling Congress that “they’ve been part of this or that [UFO] program.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4083904-true-or-crazy-ufo-whistleblowers-come-out-of-the-woodwork-congress-cant-ignore-them/
22% drop in H1 2023.
China's chip imports slump in first half as US sanctions and ongoing tech war take toll on trade
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=354945
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/can-websites-track-your-phone/#:~:text=collect about you.-,Can websites track your phone?,t careful when downloading apps.
Last weeks average appears to be an outlier with Conservatives gaining back support and Labour loosing.
(You do need to (i) trust your dining companions and (ii) not dine anywhere too expensive)
With a modest outpost in Sheffield, know as Verstappenisacu**land
Your ludicrous cashless scenarios are almost as daft as your weird views on fish fingers.
When did you last travel on a train between stations without automatic barriers, for example?
If there had been automatic barriers, he wouldn't have been able to get on the train to start with (or at least, his ticket wouldn't have been checked until the end of his trip) so it would not have been obvious to the engrossed carriage of his fellow passengers.
And again, you've called it a fable. That was not true. What you really mean is, it doesn't fit your agenda and your prejudices.
Again, I offer you the chance to withdraw.
I appreciate that having actively said everyone who deals in cash is evading taxes which might land you and OGH in legal hot water you may consider this a minor matter.
This is why we calibrate radiocarbon dates using tree rings - because radio arbon dating relies on an accurate measure of the carbon ratios which have changed because of changes in C02 concentrations in pre history.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007869117
...In contrast, the phasing relation of the YD termination between these regions appears to be the opposite. The breakpoint at ∼11,900 ± 80 B.P. in the WDC δ18O record occurs ∼200 ± 120 y before the initial termination of the Greenland YD at ∼11,700 ± 40 B.P. (Fig. 4). Other high-resolution Antarctic ice-core records are broadly consistent with the WDC record, except Dome Fuji, which does not show such a breakpoint around the YD termination (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The above phasing relation can be further tested by the WDC CH4 records on the same chronology (WD2014), due to a small uncertainty (±30 y) in the WDC ice–gas age difference (61) and a strong correlation between CH4 and AM/Greenland δ18O records (9, 63–65) controlled by the extent of wetlands and thus CH4 emissions (66). During the termination excursion, the breakpoint in the CH4 record is around 11,610 B.P., about 100 y later (rather than earlier) than the initial termination in AM and North Atlantic records. A closer look at these records reveals that the CH4 values were virtually invariant (∼500 parts per billion) during the YD between ∼12,620 and 11,610 B.P., while the AM and North Atlantic climate exhibited considerable centennial-scale oscillations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). This apparent decoupling may explain the delayed CH4 termination rise from ∼11,610 to ∼11,480 B.P., which is closely coupled to the AM intensification significantly above the threshold of the mean YD value (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Additionally, the gradual centennial-scale AM intensification from ∼11,610 to ∼11,450 B.P. contrasts with the rather abrupt decadal-scale North Atlantic temperature jump at ∼11,610 B.P., suggesting an atmospheric role (10, 11, 46, 47) on decadal scales via coupled global atmospheric circulation, aforementioned SH changes (33, 34), and oceanic controls (7, 11, 42, 43) on centennial scales in driving the AM (and CH4) termination in response to the abrupt change in the northern high latitudes...
Kinda.
And do you keep tickets only on your phone?
If so, I'm off down the cash point to make a large withdrawal.
Can we go back to discussing shoes, rhubarb salads and BBC presenters buying porn?
Or failing that, the sheer moronity* of playing five Ashes Tests without a wicketkeeper in the side?
*Autocorrect *really* hated that word, by the way. Took about five goes to stop it correcting itself!
I only have tickets on my iPhone, Apple Watch, and iPad,
When I'm on the train I usually have all three.
I'm dual sim as well, if EE goes down I have o2 as a back up.
Revenge for all those people who said Die Hard is a Christmas film.
Also worth pointing out that some of the Chinese results have been questioned especially by South American reearchers who see a much closer link between South American and North Atlantic timings. It is an ongoing and at times somewhat acrimonious dispute.
The logic was if the original server went down it would be easier to switch to the back ups.
Totally unrelated (and I mean that genuinely) read up on the 2018 TSB banking system crash.
If it's over five miles you really were a fool if you relied only on your phone.
I think I'm off down the cash point anyway!
In Rotherham, the Conservatives successfully defended their seat.
In Newham, Labour held one, but lost the other to an Independent.
In Norfolk, the Greens gained a seat from the Cons.
Good Week/Bad Week Index:
Grn +47
LDm +8
Lab +2
Con -62
Until the Norfolk result came in this morning, Cons were leading with +29, Lab +5, LD +0, Grn -9 - so Depwade turned everything on its head! A dreadful -91 for the Cons there, and +55 for the Greens.
Newham's two results were almost exactly a wash: (Boleyn ward first) Cons -12 and +15, Lab -39 and +37, Grn +5 and -5.
It's almost as if the developers have thought about possible pitfalls of the cash-free life and overcome them.
Weird.
The global air temperature change was certainly dramatic, whether it was over a decade or so, or in the order of a century.
The phase change of such huge masses of water likely accounts for that ?
But if course the proximate cause of that was likely the change in atmospheric gas composition, as with today.
(I think NW may have also phased it out now, if you have the app - still have a credit card with them and I've not idea where the little card reader thing is or whether I even still have it)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66201526
Not foolish, just the modern world.
FWIW, I'm still a card person - but simply because I haven't seen the clear benefits of the phone option to switch wholesale, no real objection. Few cards in a slimfold wallet, often with a single note in there for emergencies and the barber. I don't find carrying the cards a hassle - I have to carry work ID/lock card anyway - and I don't see any real time saving in phone contactless versus card contactless. I do have my cards set up on my phone, so outside work I could just take phone, but haven't yet broken the wallet habit.
I haven't used or needed cash for ten years.
There are many more like me.
Just not on PB.
You can also print off the e-ticket and show the guard the piece of paper. No risk of the battery running out on a piece of paper.
At the time, I was living between two houses - mine and then girlfriend, now wife - and I never had the damn thing with me when I needed it. Lloyds policy of text or automated phone call (then, now the app sends a notification, you provide fingerprint and you're done) was more robust and convenient for me.
But, you know what? I don't care. I carry a wallet with cards, hardly ever use cash. Some people prefer just a phone, some people cash. Everyone can do what they want.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/road-operations-planned-raf-typhoons-f-35bs#:~:text=The UK Royal Air Force,Aviation Week on June 13.
...Both demonstrations are part of a wider effort to make RAF training more realistic and relevant in modern combat. Nordic countries such as Finland and Sweden have routinely practiced distributing their forces from main operating bases, with the assumption that a Russian attack would cripple most stationary infrastructure within hours of a war beginning.
Such distributed operating models also were used by NATO members during the Cold War. But the extra costs imposed by such a strategy, including the need for additional spares and trained maintainers, have driven many air forces to focus on optimizing the efficiency of main operating bases.
The costs of distributed operations have risen with the increasing sophistication of frontline aircraft, such as Typhoons and F-35Bs.
The demonstrations are intended to reveal any gaps in the RAF’s ability to operate away from its main operating bases for short periods, Smyth said...
One hiccup. I paid my sister half the funds (even though the estate isn't yet wound up) and I did that by CHAPs as the limit on faster payments would have meant it taking several days and I also wanted to move my element to interest bearing accounts also. The CHAPs payment went missing!!!! It was found later the next day and backdated, but quite a worry. It was held up for manual money laundering checks at my sister's bank but then forgotten about. If it had been my bank I would have been pretty annoyed.
This thread is using its last fiver to pay to get home
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/13/white-hydrogen-disrupt-global-energy-net-zero/
But then, on this subject you are very foolish, bordering on the positively maniacal.
@LOS_Fisher
·
Jul 9
I’ve been to Uxbridge twice in the past fortnight to speak to voters in different parts of the seat.
Most striking thing was how many people said variations of ‘it’s time for a change’.
V good news for Labour if it’s a UK-wide trend…
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher