I have never understood what Mandela is meant to have done other than sit in prison for 20 years while jcr common rooms were named in his honour. The biopic title The Long Walk To Freedom, boring as it is, actually overstates the interest-no walking involved.
Now, let's not get silly. What he did was use his moral authority to unite the country and promote reconciliation after the end of apartheid; indeed the prospect of him doing so was one of factors which made the end of apartheid possible. That was certainly a great achievement, which (as David pointed out) had some points of similarity with the aftermath of the Boer War.
Oh, why not, it's nice and late, let's all take some mind-bending substances and see who can compose the most outrageous trolling post of the night. Since SeanT left it's probably even a fair competition.
I have never understood what Mandela is meant to have done other than sit in prison for 20 years while jcr common rooms were named in his honour. The biopic title The Long Walk To Freedom, boring as it is, actually overstates the interest-no walking involved.
Now, let's not get silly. What he did was use his moral authority to unite the country and promote reconciliation after the end of apartheid; indeed the prospect of him doing so was one of factors which made the end of apartheid possible. That was certainly a great achievement, which (as David pointed out) had some points of similarity with the aftermath of the Boer War.
But where did he derive the moral authority from? And what excuses the silence over necklacing?
Oh, why not, it's nice and late, let's all take some mind-bending substances and see who can compose the most outrageous trolling post of the night. Since SeanT left it's probably even a fair competition.
Necklacing ok with you, then? Or doesn't count if it's black on black?
Sod UKIP, these floods are pretty brutal. Amazing, not in a good way.
Expect a bold move from Cam to wrest back both the initiative and to stop the bickering. We will be hearing a lot about him "personally overseeing COBRA meetings", etc and I guess we will get some pretty strong visuals (army perhaps, under MACA?) to show how he and the Cons are getting a grip.
Not to say that he will politicise it but there are plenty of communities in need and a lot of water on screen that he needs to act upon.
Yeah you are absolutely right.
It's been raining. A LOT. It's going to rain more. The Government can't control that, they can only show they're dealing with it best they can (and they're doing OK).
That the Tories tried to turn it into a political / blame issue by going after the EA is astonishing.
What idiot made that decision? Some wonky rightwing Oxbridge halfwit who thought it would be a jolly good chance to attack Labour Quangos, what ho, what larks?
Still spouting your ill informed rubbish I see Hugh. As I pointed out earlier, the rain we are having at present is not unique. Indeed there have been higher concentrations at regular intervals in the past and we get this sort of rainfall approximately every 50 years.
Funnily enough on previous occasions the flooding in the Somerset levels has been nowhere as bad. But of course that was because on previous occasions the rivers and flood defences had been properly maintained.
The EU had a responsibility to maintain the rivers and flood defences. They have failed to do this and therefore should be held responsible. Actually the one person who could perhaps reasonably claim some lack of responsibility is Lord Smith since although he is now head of the EA, it was not on his watch that the decision was made to stop dredging.
Ah, evening Richard. I read the article you posted earlier, and it was actually really interesting!
As your hydrologist author rightly pointed out, dredging would not have stopped the floods.
He spoiled an otherwise interesting piece with a bizarre and irrelevant sentence about "air temperature" though.
Of course, just because the Levels have flooded before has no bearing on the fact that global warming is causing more extreme weather events.
The climate has warmed dramatically. This is unequivocal, you know that.
Thing is Richard, I'm not even particularly evangelical about this. I don't even think we should particularly try to reduce Carbon emissions unless we can find a way to do it cost-effectively.
But to be credible, you sceptics have got to accept two very basic scientific facts*. Firstly, that the climate is warming. Second, that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible.
Otherwise, you look like extremists and attract tags like "denier", often justifiably.
*as close as science gets to fact, general relativity isn't "proven" blah blah.
Sigh. I did tell you to go and look at the original data sources and not trust wiki.
What you have to accept is that the climate has not warmed in over a decade. Phil Jones of CRU - one of the most evangelical of AGW proponents - says it has not warmed in 15 years but that uses a statistical anomaly so it is safer to say 13 years to avoid the 1998 El Nino peak. This is accepted by most scientists on both sides of the argument. It appears it is only those who put zealotry above science who don't accept this.
Secondly as you showed very clearly last week, you fail clearly to understand that the gases you refer to, even in laboratory conditions, cannot account for the warming that is claimed prior to 1998. The whole debate is around feedback mechanisms and whether these are positive or negative.If the AGW proponents are correct then the feedbacks are predominantly positive, if the sepetics are correct they are predominantly negative or neutral.
If you fail to understand even that basic position then you really don't get the debate.
Perhaps you would like to debate the 'dramatic' Bronze Age warming period or the 'dramatic' mid Roman warming period, both of which were global in scale and both of which were warmer than current temperatures. I mention those two rather than the medieval period (which was also warmer) only because I make part of my living out of collecting and analysing the data related to those two episodes.
Of course there's no evidence linking a single storm to a long-term warming trend, that's silly. But we know almost for certain that the long-term warming trend will cause more extreme weather events.
There has been climate warming in the last decade, it's just slowed down due to short-term weather fluctuations.
Rainfall in the past did produce massive flooding, and it will get worse (due to the increasing severity of storms, development reducing the ability of land to naturally hold water, and so on)
It is not just single storms. Atlantic Hurricane activity has been notably lower for several years both in numbers and in terms of the absolute total energy.
More importantly you are wrong on warming. Overall the global temperature has stayed static or dropped slightly according to both the UAH satellite data the CRU surface temperature data set over the last decade (actually since 2001). This is now accepted by both sides of the argument with the AGW proponents having moved from denial to trying to explain why.
You are right about development on flood plains but as I showed earlier with the link to the EA map, traditional flood plains include the homes of several million people.
Too late for global warming, but one thing. The "global temperature" has most certainly not "stayed static". It has increased, dramatically, and that staggering rate of warming has only slowed a bit recently.
You're right that scientists are trying to explain why the climate has continued to warm when so many short term trends should be cooling it recently though.
Wrong. Go and look at the data sets compiled by both UAH and CRU. If you are being really lazy you can even just go and look at the graphs on Wiki although I don't cite it as a source. Better to go and look at the actual data sets compiled by the people who do the measurements and see that the temperature has not risen.
Wiki? Bloody hell.
The climate has warmed dramatically. This is unequivocal, you know that.
Thing is Richard, I'm not even particularly evangelical about this. I don't even think we should particularly try to reduce Carbon emissions unless we can find a way to do it cost-effectively.
But to be credible, you sceptics have got to accept two very basic scientific facts*. Firstly, that the climate is warming. Second, that human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible.
Otherwise, you look like extremists and attract tags like "denier", often justifiably.
*as close as science gets to fact, general relativity isn't "proven" blah blah.
"Would-be suicide bombers got to meet their 72 virgins a bit early on Monday when their clumsy al Qaeda tutor accidentally detonated an explosives-packed car during a how-to-bomb lesson at their Iraqi terror camp."
"Would-be suicide bombers got to meet their 72 virgins a bit early on Monday when their clumsy al Qaeda tutor accidentally detonated an explosives-packed car during a how-to-bomb lesson at their Iraqi terror camp."
Oh, why not, it's nice and late, let's all take some mind-bending substances and see who can compose the most outrageous trolling post of the night. Since SeanT left it's probably even a fair competition.
OK. "The next election will obviously not be close. The Conservatives have lost, and the only serious discussion is whether Ed will get an overall majority. ALL the columns in pb.com on domestic politics over the next 15 months will be a waste of time for the deluded authors and the greedy readers. Oh, and Neil's party will not even come close to holding a seat."
I hope the draft particulars of claim contain the following:-
The purported suspension was contrary to the Party's rules... The purported suspension was contrary to thr principles of natural justice... The purported suspension was mere caprice and/or actuated by malice... The purported suspension was wholly unreasonable...
AND the Claimant claims:
(1) A declaration that the resolution passed by the Committee of the said Party which purported to suspend the Claimant's membership of the said Party and exclude the Claimant from the premises of the said Party is illegal, unlawful, in breach of the Constitution of the Party, and/or contrary to natural justice, and/or invalid, and/or ultra vires and/or null and void, and a declaration that the Claimant was at all times, and still remains, a member of the said Party, and entitled to all the privileges of such membership, and compelling the Defendants to re-admit him to the full advantages of membership;
(2) An injunction to restrain the said committee and each and every member thereof whether by itself, or by any sub-committee, or by any officer, servant or agent of the said committee or by any member of the said Party or otherwise howsoever from enforcing the said resolution or interfering with the Claimant in his use and enjoyment of the benefit of membership of the said Party and the buildings and property thereof,
(3) Damages;
(4) The aforesaid interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.
Oh, why not, it's nice and late, let's all take some mind-bending substances and see who can compose the most outrageous trolling post of the night. Since SeanT left it's probably even a fair competition.
OK. "The next election will obviously not be close. The Conservatives have lost, and the only serious discussion is whether Ed will get an overall majority. ALL the columns in pb.com on domestic politics over the next 15 months will be a waste of time for the deluded authors and the greedy readers. Oh, and Neil's party will not even come close to holding a seat."
Which pollster was it, possibly Bob Worcester iirc, often quoted by OGH, who was fond of saying - "Don't look at poll leads, look at the parties' share of the vote". On this basis, with the Tories steadingly edging up to 34% in the latest findings, they must be feeling fairly comfortable about their prospects. The LibDems on the other hand must be in the pit of despond.
Speaking of Bob Worcester - is there any chance of his making a return "live" appearance on PB.com?
Oh, why not, it's nice and late, let's all take some mind-bending substances and see who can compose the most outrageous trolling post of the night. Since SeanT left it's probably even a fair competition.
OK. "The next election will obviously not be close. The Conservatives have lost, and the only serious discussion is whether Ed will get an overall majority. ALL the columns in pb.com on domestic politics over the next 15 months will be a waste of time for the deluded authors and the greedy readers. Oh, and Neil's party will not even come close to holding a seat."
Next entry?
That's barely contentious. Now if you were to suggest that Miliband was to recommend that Britain leave the EU, recommend Windfarms to be torn down, recommend Scottish MP's were to be denied votes on English and Welsh only matters and be excluded from English only ministerships and Hattie Harman was to come out in favour of all male selection lists then I would suggest you were getting into the realms of trolling...........
By the way saw your Sky appearance the other day. Thought it was going spiffingly until they asked you what the alternatives were and then you started waffling about their being lots of alternatives without specifying one in detail. Id have thought you would have realised that stating one alternative in depth is far better than attempting 'there's lot of them' gambit. That just sounded weak.
The whole debate is around feedback mechanisms and whether these are positive or negative.
Pardon?! What debate, what feedback mechanisms in particular? Surely - SURELY - not the old hockey stick bollox about warming causing greenhouse gas emissions and that's what we've seen since the industrial revolution?! You're not going back to that guff?
This is what extreme sceptics, flat earth fruitcake deniers if you will, do. Obfuscate and say "I rely on the science!" on message boards and around the media, without backing anything up, just enough to seed doubt.
You're not one of those are you Richard?
If you want science, start here, maybe we can come back to this sometime after some reading.
www.ipcc.ch
Bloody Hell Hugh you really don't understand it do you.
The basic AGW hypothesis is that some 25 - 30% of the any human warming of the atmosphere comes directly from CO2 emissions. The other 70-75% comes from positive feedback mechanisms. The counter hypothesis is that negative feedback mechanisms serve to either reduce warming due to direct CO2 concentrations or to counter the positive feedback mechanisms.
These feedback mechanisms - both positive and negative - are widely accepted in climate science and the whole debate about AGW revolves around which set of feedback mechanisms (known as forcings) are the more dominant in the atmosphere and biosphere.
I am sorry to see that you do not understand this basic principle of the debate before you start pontificating.
Some examples of the forcings which are thought to play a part in controlling global temperatures are outlines in the papers linked to below.
You see I am interested in the actual science not the political posturing.
Why do you say that? The DUP are likely to sell themselves to the highest bidder, they certainly dont owe anything to a party that organises against them back home.
Nick Sutton @suttonnick · 5 mins Tuesday's Daily Telegraph front page - "'Homeowners, you knew the risk'" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #flooding pic.twitter.com/C3IjrliEnG
Does anyone know who said it ?
It must be lord smith ?
Yes.
"Lord Smith said people who bought homes on the flood plains needed to think about the "risk that property faces."
1. If you bought a house in an area with active flood defenses and then the people responsible for those active measures quietly stop doing it without telling anyone because they want to drown all the wildlife then they're perfectly entitled to complain about it.
2. Is Smith one of the people who say this country isn't crowded and there's plenty of suitable land to build millions of extra houses on that isn't on flood-plains?
Why do global warmists seem to be opposed to flood and sea defenses in western countries on principle even though rising sea levels is part of their argument and given they say they want money to build them in places like Bangladesh?
Why do you say that? The DUP are likely to sell themselves to the highest bidder, they certainly dont owe anything to a party that organises against them back home.
Neil is right, a deal with the DUP will be about pounds and pence in the pork barrel, not particularly any principle:
Justin124 The LDs would stick with their promise to go with the party with most votes, the Tories can also rely on the unionists
The LibDems have made no such promise. They said something vague about the winner having the right to be the first to try to form a government, but they wouldn't say whether that was votes or seats, and in any case it turned out to mean they'd talk to them first, not that they wouldn't try to cut a deal better with the other side.
EdinTokyo Clegg committed to go with the party with most votes before the last election, if the Tories get to 39% the Tory-LD coalition will continue, given Alexander and Clegg's evident contempt for Miliband and Balls they will not get into bed with Labour unless Labour has clearly won most votes but not a majority
Neil/Pulpstar The DUP always supports the Tories on confidence votes, the nationalists, Greens and Respect will inevitably go with Labour whatever they may say beforehand
EdinTokyo Clegg committed to go with the party with most votes before the last election, if the Tories get to 39% the Tory-LD coalition will continue, given Alexander and Clegg's evident contempt for Miliband and Balls they will not get into bed with Labour unless Labour has clearly won most votes but not a majority
Danny might not even have a seat, Clegg will do a deal with either Cameron or Miliband after the election.
Neil/Pulpstar The DUP always supports the Tories on confidence votes, the nationalists, Greens and Respect will inevitably go with Labour whatever they may say beforehand
I think you're thinking of the UUP rather than the DUP, HYUFD. They are very different animals. For example the DUP voted against Major in the Maastricht vote of confidence that was ended up tied. They are far from reliably Tory.
Pulpstar Clegg will form a coalition with whoever gets most votes as he has confirmed in countless interviews since the election too, if Miliband does not win most votes he will not be PM
One thing's for sure - the Tories won't go into coalition again with the LibDems without cast iron guarantees as regards long overdue boundary changes being implemented as a first year priority. No chance of them getting shafted again on that issue!
Should the Tories win around 275 seats and the LibDems around 35 seats as the betting odds are currently suggesting, it would probably prove impossible for the two parties to form a sustainable coalition with a total of 310 seats and very little support from elsewhere - far more likely that the Yellows would link up with the nationalists in supporting a Labour government, if not in a formal coalition.
With less than 15 months to go before the next GE, isn't it high time that the leading bookies, Betfair even, started offering bands for the number of seats to be won by each of the major parties, assuming such a description still applies to the LibDems?
Currently Ladbrokes are alone in offering such bands and then for LibDems seats only. Come on Shadsy - it's surely time to gee things up a bit!
Should the Tories win around 275 seats and the LibDems around 35 seats as the betting odds are currently suggesting, it would probably prove impossible for the two parties to form a sustainable coalition with a total of 310 seats and very little support from elsewhere - far more likely that the Yellows would link up with the nationalists in supporting a Labour government, if not in a formal coalition.
That assumes a no vote for scottish independence. I cannot help feeling that forming a government based on snp and scots labour support may be viewed as a little offside in the event of a yes vote for independence
One thing's for sure - the Tories won't go into coalition again with the LibDems without cast iron guarantees as regards long overdue boundary changes being implemented as a first year priority. No chance of them getting shafted again on that issue!
Do you think they'll give Lords reform another go? Maybe they could put the whole lot in a single bill and stick an EU referendum in there as well. That should make it hard for Tories to vote it down even if they oppose Lords reform and would rather not have their jobs threatened by tinkering with their seats.
Ed in Tokyo He gave that party first option on forming a government and thus went with the Tories, given a second Tory-LD Coalition would be a continuation of the status quo negotations should not be that painful given most was already agreed in 2010. Peter However, if the Tories squeeze UKIP another Coalition looks more likely. Zen Unless there is a big poll shift No remains the most likely result
Comments
Chancellor George Osborne, meanwhile, said people understood "that the rain is not the fault of any one person".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26111598
All I have seen is that there are some people who found the comparison between Smuts and Mandela a thought provoking one, including myself.
What you have to accept is that the climate has not warmed in over a decade. Phil Jones of CRU - one of the most evangelical of AGW proponents - says it has not warmed in 15 years but that uses a statistical anomaly so it is safer to say 13 years to avoid the 1998 El Nino peak. This is accepted by most scientists on both sides of the argument. It appears it is only those who put zealotry above science who don't accept this.
Secondly as you showed very clearly last week, you fail clearly to understand that the gases you refer to, even in laboratory conditions, cannot account for the warming that is claimed prior to 1998. The whole debate is around feedback mechanisms and whether these are positive or negative.If the AGW proponents are correct then the feedbacks are predominantly positive, if the sepetics are correct they are predominantly negative or neutral.
If you fail to understand even that basic position then you really don't get the debate.
Perhaps you would like to debate the 'dramatic' Bronze Age warming period or the 'dramatic' mid Roman warming period, both of which were global in scale and both of which were warmer than current temperatures. I mention those two rather than the medieval period (which was also warmer) only because I make part of my living out of collecting and analysing the data related to those two episodes.
I have emailed Tim. Sadly no response so I don't think he is coming back.
http://nypost.com/2014/02/10/suicide-bomb-instructor-blows-up-his-students-by-mistake/
Next entry?
http://youtu.be/4sbKuBwKVyQ
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/lord-rennard-lib-dems-suspension-ultimatum
I hope the draft particulars of claim contain the following:-
The purported suspension was contrary to the Party's rules...
The purported suspension was contrary to thr principles of natural justice...
The purported suspension was mere caprice and/or actuated by malice...
The purported suspension was wholly unreasonable...
AND the Claimant claims:
(1) A declaration that the resolution passed by the Committee of the said Party which purported to suspend the Claimant's membership of the said Party and exclude the Claimant from the premises of the said Party is illegal, unlawful, in breach of the Constitution of the Party, and/or contrary to natural justice, and/or invalid, and/or ultra vires and/or null and void, and a declaration that the Claimant was at all times, and still remains, a member of the said Party, and entitled to all the privileges of such membership, and compelling the Defendants to re-admit him to the full advantages of membership;
(2) An injunction to restrain the said committee and each and every member thereof whether by itself, or by any sub-committee, or by any officer, servant or agent of the said committee or by any member of the said Party or otherwise howsoever from enforcing the said resolution or interfering with the Claimant in his use and enjoyment of the benefit of membership of the said Party and the buildings and property thereof,
(3) Damages;
(4) The aforesaid interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.
On this basis, with the Tories steadingly edging up to 34% in the latest findings, they must be feeling fairly comfortable about their prospects. The LibDems on the other hand must be in the pit of despond.
Speaking of Bob Worcester - is there any chance of his making a return "live" appearance on PB.com?
I wonder how his name was pronounced when he lived in America?
By the way saw your Sky appearance the other day. Thought it was going spiffingly until they asked you what the alternatives were and then you started waffling about their being lots of alternatives without specifying one in detail. Id have thought you would have realised that stating one alternative in depth is far better than attempting 'there's lot of them' gambit. That just sounded weak.
The basic AGW hypothesis is that some 25 - 30% of the any human warming of the atmosphere comes directly from CO2 emissions. The other 70-75% comes from positive feedback mechanisms. The counter hypothesis is that negative feedback mechanisms serve to either reduce warming due to direct CO2 concentrations or to counter the positive feedback mechanisms.
These feedback mechanisms - both positive and negative - are widely accepted in climate science and the whole debate about AGW revolves around which set of feedback mechanisms (known as forcings) are the more dominant in the atmosphere and biosphere.
I am sorry to see that you do not understand this basic principle of the debate before you start pontificating.
Some examples of the forcings which are thought to play a part in controlling global temperatures are outlines in the papers linked to below.
You see I am interested in the actual science not the political posturing.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/6060960_Cloud-radiative_forcing_and_climate_results_from_the_Earth_radiation_budget_experiment/file/9fcfd512b9ff36bcda.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1aOUHY6e-EHy6-vNltHjvaI-u1UQ&oi=scholarr&ei=kmv5UvOHKKTA7Ab4pYHIBw&ved=0CCsQgAMoADAA
http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/344.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD089iD06p09668/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/video-1082972/WARNING-GRAPHIC-Zookeepers-kill-surplus-baby-giraffe.html
2. Is Smith one of the people who say this country isn't crowded and there's plenty of suitable land to build millions of extra houses on that isn't on flood-plains?
(which is why it wasn't built on in the past)
cos
pollution is sin and flooding is punishment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7679038/General-Election-2010-How-Conservative-deal-with-DUP-might-work.html
42 Days for retention of water rates revenue springs to mind.
https://mobile.twitter.com/catdackombe/status/432938911967752192/photo/1?screen_name=catdackombe
Neil Maastricht they were voting to Major's right and were not the main unionist party, Cameron is now offering a referendum on the EU, in any case it would be an acceptance of a post election Tory Coalition, not to topple one. The DUP also voted with the Tories on a 2012 vote of confidence
http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2012/06/hunt-puts-in-strong-performance-as-government-wins-vote-of-confidence.html
Night!
Currently Ladbrokes are alone in offering such bands and then for LibDems seats only. Come on Shadsy - it's surely time to gee things up a bit!