You do need to bear in mind that according to most polls, Scots want to stay in the UK.
CyberNats are like Cyberkippers. They confuse their own passion and vitrol with widespread support. They are so obsessed that they fail to recognise that others think differently.
If fear is the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK the union feels like it's lost any meaning, so this south Britain dweller feels. Has anyone actually made a positive case for the Union in Scotland?
Who wants to spend the rest of their life married to someone who's only there because they are afraid to leave?
He wasn't interested in the Somerset farmers being flooded, he wasn't interested in the Yorkshire floods of 2007 but now he's very much concerned with apparantly unlimited money available when the stockbroker belt is affected.
But to be even handed the Labour government didn't give a toss about the Yorkshire floods of 2007 either and Cameron preferred to go on a mud hut building photostunt when his own constituency was flooded that year.
It will though add to the image that the political establishment is only interested in issues if London is affected.
Your prejudice against Cameron knows no bounds. If anything, I'd say he and the government (and the media) have, at least until the last few days, rather neglected the flood victims of Berkshire, Surrey and Kent compared with those (a much smaller number) hit in the Somerset Levels.
LOL
YOUR prejudice for Cameron knows no bounds.
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
Surprising that turnout is apparently so low in Wythenshawe. Loads of people on twitter were saying they were surprised how busy the polling stations were.
The polling stations probably seemed busy in comparison to most elections (including local elections) that take place in the Wythenshawe area, when turnout is pretty awful. So a Westminster election will always seem quite good in comparison. My prediction was 29%.
Nicola Bartlett says: "Postal votes being counted looks like they make up about 60 per cent of the votes."
Oh jesus it's a climate science denial infestation on PB as well as a load more Rightwing footsoldiers "welcome" return.
Mike you need some sandbags.
Hugh I have forgotten more about climate science every time I drink a pint than you ever knew.
Leave the science to people who actually know what they are talking about. You are an embarrassment.
The very nature of your post tells me how incorrect it is.
So do explain to me how you so completely failed to understand what I was talking about a couple of nights ago when I mentioned positive and negative feedback mechanisms and you thought I was talking about temperature driven CO2 increases?
Given that the mechanisms I spoke about are fundamental to the whole basis of climate science whether anthropogenic or natural whilst temperature driven CO2 discussions are only ever seen on blog postings I think I have a pretty good idea where you are getting all your information from.
Really?! Who is telling you that the No campaign is relentlessly negative? You don't think that we are also seeing the very dark and negative side of rampant Nationalism in all its unedifying glory up here too during the debate? Go have a look at some of the Yes/Celtic supporters related crap that is also around online!!
You do need to bear in mind that according to most polls, Scots want to stay in the UK.
CyberNats are like Cyberkippers. They confuse their own passion and vitrol with widespread support. They are so obsessed that they fail to recognise that others think differently.
If fear is the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK the union feels like it's lost any meaning, so this south Britain dweller feels. Has anyone actually made a positive case for the Union in Scotland?
Who wants to spend the rest of their life married to someone who's only there because they are afraid to leave?
But why has the no campaign been so relentlessly negative? They might as well have got Iain Paisley involved.
At the count, Deborah says: "UkIP still expecting 2nd but no longer strong second.
"Say they've been picking up voters who either haven't voted for years /voted old labour"
Nicola Bartlett says: "Postal votes being counted looks like they make up about 60 per cent of the votes."
Blimey! 60% of votes are postal. I bet there's been skulduggery by labour. The law on postal votes was suppose to help invalids and old people who found it hard to turn up at the voting booth. I bet theres not 60% of those categories in Wythenshawe and Sale East.
The Environment Agency deserve gongs, awards, pay rises, everything going.
The flood defences they've built in recent years and actions they've taken in response have kept millions of people safe during the worst weather for ever.
And Labour and Tory Governments deserve credit too.
Let's hope support for the EA increases to deal with climate change.
Getting colder you mean?
More extreme weather events, so quite possibly exceptional cold spells yes.
LOL This from a man who knows so little about the climate he got all confused and scuttled off when I started talking about feedback mechanisms and forcing a few nights ago.
If you don't know what you are talking about Hugh you had best keep quiet or you just embarrass yourself.
I've come to the conclusion that you're a practised extreme-sceptic/denier obfuscator Richard. You might enjoy it, you've probably been doing it for years. But I don't.
No Hugh. I thought you knew. I am consultant geologist who does a very nice side line doing palaeo-environment modelling for archaeology units and universities. Like I said. you are just embarrassing yourself.
"Consultant geologist" eh. That explains a lot.
What it should tell you is that you are out of your depth. Scuttle away Hugh. You got found out.
If the Lib Dems get beat by the Monster Raving Loony Party in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election I will not stop laughing.
Nicola Bartlett tweets: "Monster Raving Loony party definitely making the bigger impression arriving at the count. After posing for pics they ask 'where's the bar?'"
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
Plenty of stockbroker-belt (or rather City worker) houses were flooded in Kent in January. It's odd that the Somerset Levels got so much more media attention, although I suppose the sheer number of square miles flooded, and the livestock affected, made more dramatic pictures than houses flooded in Tonbridge and Yalding.
Of course you are probably right that Cameron will get blamed by the usual suspects whatever he does or doesn't do, purely out of class prejudice.
See the posts of Danny565 for where that leads the country. It's not a pretty sight.
If fear is the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK the union feels like it's lost any meaning, so this south Britain dweller feels. Has anyone actually made a positive case for the Union in Scotland?
Who wants to spend the rest of their life married to someone who's only there because they are afraid to leave?
I think Cameron made a fairly good positive case but I do agree that north of the border there has been too much emphasis on the negative.
I will vote no because I am British and proud to be so. I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has such an illustrious history and still plays a major role in world affairs. I think the UK is a great force for good in the world. Like every country we make mistakes but I think as a country we genuinely mean well and have done good. Our aid to Syria is a recent example. I think being a part of the Union gives Scots a range of opportunities for advancement and success they would not have in a small country like Scotland. Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling are obvious examples in politics but there are many other examples in business, commerce and culture. There are opportunities to grow businesses in Scotland as a part of the UK I do not believe would exist in an independent Scotland. I think we have far more in common as a country than we have dividing us. We largely share the same values, principles and language. I think we are much stronger together and are able to assist each other in times of hardship. We also have far greater control over our own affairs as the United Kingdom than Scotland would have alone. Within the EU we are a big beast. According to some economists with 20-30 years we may be the biggest beast of all. We can generally stop what we do not like. Scotland would risk becoming an insignificant backwater if it was independent. To take the example of Syria again what is Denmark's policy or Portugal's policy? Who cares? Who cares how they vote in the Council of Ministers? They have no say. I would not want my children to grow up in such an insignificant country.
I can see that there is a counterargument: the old Chinese curse of may you live in interesting times. But do do we really want to be such bit players? I am ambitious for Scotland's future. I strongly believe that future is much brighter as a part of a successful union.
Cameron made no case whatsoever. I also see cowardy custard George was scared to take questions from the press, flying visit , utter a few cowardly threats and run away quick. LOL.
I wonder if they're so certain of victory why 'senior coalition' members are warning that a Yes vote in the referendum would not guarantee independence, and the 'status quo' will be maintained if talks don't go smoothly. It's almost like these people are all bluster and no balls; now where have I encountered that mindset recently?
The Herald Newsdesk @Splashthenews 27m Warnings from senior Coalition figure that Yes vote won't mean independence if cross-border talks fail. Herald front page http://tinyurl.com/qyqdaez
It is not a threat, it is a warning. A currency union requires two or more willing partners, not just one demanding one that fails to listen to the other parties at the table.
Scotland can use the pound, or tie a Scottish pound to the rUK pound, but a currency union is not in the rUK interest. We are a country that prefers not to be interfered with from abroad.
If fear is the only thing keeping Scotland in the UK the union feels like it's lost any meaning, so this south Britain dweller feels. Has anyone actually made a positive case for the Union in Scotland?
Who wants to spend the rest of their life married to someone who's only there because they are afraid to leave?
I think Cameron made a fairly good positive case but I do agree that north of the border there has been too much emphasis on the negative.
I will vote no because I am British and proud to be so. I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has such an illustrious history and still plays a major role in world affairs. I think the UK is a great force for good in the world. Like every country we make mistakes but I think as a country we genuinely mean well and have done good. Our aid to Syria is a recent example. I think being a part of the Union gives Scots a range of opportunities for advancement and success they would not have in a small country like Scotland. Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling are obvious examples in politics but there are many other examples in business, commerce and culture.
Cameron made no case whatsoever. I also see cowardy custard George was scared to take questions from the press, flying visit , utter a few cowardly threats and run away quick. LOL.
When the SNP lost its last indy ref, the rancour was mostly internal. They fought like ferrets in a sack, until Salmond arose to lead them again a generation later.
I suspect they will do so again. Revolutions eat themselves, even unsuccessful ones.
@foxinsoxuk Negativity is unattractive in any campaign, but in a sense it matters less in this - No is "default - carry on (pretty much) as now". No doesn't have to really sell anything. It's the Yes campaign who have to sell something, a new thing - who should have a positive message. They don't really seem to have it. Maybe the strategy is, consciously or part-consciously, to create sufficient rancour that a parting of the ways seems natural. Perhaps it will work.
Fox, sadly, I think that this Indy Ref debate will leave some long lasting festering political wounds among some friends and within families who are now totally split and entrenched on different sides of this debate.
Mr. D, I haven't watched QT or This Week for ages.
Morris, you have missed two or three interesting This Week episodes recently, interesting topics and excellent guests. It has definitely got its mojo back, hopefully it will continue.
Labour have so far selected 309 candidates, but if you include MPs elected in by-elections since 2010, the figure goes up to 318 which is more than 50% of the total to be selected (assuming they don't contest any seats in Northern Ireland).
Scientific knowledge moves forward through peer reviewed studies.
Most of the climate change sceptics stay well clear of such scientific process since they are unable to put a consistent logical argument against those with deep understanding of such issues.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
Oh jesus it's a climate science denial infestation on PB as well as a load more Rightwing footsoldiers "welcome" return.
Mike you need some sandbags.
Hugh I have forgotten more about climate science every time I drink a pint than you ever knew.
Leave the science to people who actually know what they are talking about. You are an embarrassment.
The very nature of your post tells me how incorrect it is.
So do explain to me how you so completely failed to understand what I was talking about a couple of nights ago when I mentioned positive and negative feedback mechanisms and you thought I was talking about temperature driven CO2 increases?
Given that the mechanisms I spoke about are fundamental to the whole basis of climate science whether anthropogenic or natural whilst temperature driven CO2 discussions are only ever seen on blog postings I think I have a pretty good idea where you are getting all your information from.
I've little doubt you were one of those professionally obfuscating about that very thing until it became totally discredited and you moved on to the next thing that might muddy the waters (just persistent enough, just credible enough to cast doubt on the actual science).
What was it, Sunspots perhaps, until you had to move on again after that was discredited?
Scientists aren't very good at wack-a-mole, so it tends to take longer to prove than it does "sceptics" to seed doubt.
So why has the jet stream moved so far south? All your favourite AGW models show it was expected to move north!! And all the AGW crowd were saying 20 years ago that snow in winter across the mid-latitude northern hemisphere winters was going to be a thing of the past. The AGW crowd are so badly discredited that an honourable withdrawal from the stage behind the curtain would be advisable now, rather than suffer even more humiliation.
Oh jesus it's a climate science denial infestation on PB as well as a load more Rightwing footsoldiers "welcome" return.
Mike you need some sandbags.
Hugh I have forgotten more about climate science every time I drink a pint than you ever knew.
Leave the science to people who actually know what they are talking about. You are an embarrassment.
The very nature of your post tells me how incorrect it is.
So do explain to me how you so completely failed to understand what I was talking about a couple of nights ago when I mentioned positive and negative feedback mechanisms and you thought I was talking about temperature driven CO2 increases?
Given that the mechanisms I spoke about are fundamental to the whole basis of climate science whether anthropogenic or natural whilst temperature driven CO2 discussions are only ever seen on blog postings I think I have a pretty good idea where you are getting all your information from.
I've little doubt you were one of those professionally obfuscating about that very thing until it became totally discredited and you moved on to the next thing that might muddy the waters (just persistent enough, just credible enough to cast doubt on the actual science).
What was it, Sunspots perhaps, until you had to move on again after that was discredited?
Scientists aren't very good at wack-a-mole, so it tends to take longer to prove than it does "sceptics" to seed doubt.
Hugh, unfortunately for you, you can't change what you have already said (at least not after the 6 minute edit is up). When I mentioned one of the most basic principles of climate science you didn't have a clue what I was talking about and showed as much in your response.
That says all we need to know about your familiarity with climatology.
You are utterly discredited and just make yourself look rather silly.
Surprising that turnout is apparently so low in Wythenshawe. Loads of people on twitter were saying they were surprised how busy the polling stations were.
The polling stations probably seemed busy in comparison to most elections (including local elections) that take place in the Wythenshawe area, when turnout is pretty awful. So a Westminster election will always seem quite good in comparison. My prediction was 29%.
Nicola Bartlett says: "Postal votes being counted looks like they make up about 60 per cent of the votes."
Labour would definitely have been more worried about this by-election without large scale postal voting being available.
We saw in Eastleigh how UKIP actually won most votes on polling day itself.
If one party is organizing to get supporters to use postal votes (which makes logistical sense if you can do it) and the other isn't, you'd expect the remaining votes to favour parties that don't organize. That doesn't mean the people who voted postally wouldn't have voted on the day if they hadn't been able to use postal votes.
This storm coverage is making me hanker for the happier days of the Rennard sex scandal.
Hanker no more because unless I'm mistaken the Rennard 'deadline' has almost passed and tomorrow we should find out who blinked first and bottled it. Clegg or Rennard.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
I was, hence I asked if he has ever contributed towards any scientific papers on the matter - that is how scientific knowledge moves forward, not on any internet forum.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
When the SNP lost its last indy ref, the rancour was mostly internal. They fought like ferrets in a sack, until Salmond arose to lead them again a generation later.
I suspect they will do so again. Revolutions eat themselves, even unsuccessful ones.
@foxinsoxuk Negativity is unattractive in any campaign, but in a sense it matters less in this - No is "default - carry on (pretty much) as now". No doesn't have to really sell anything. It's the Yes campaign who have to sell something, a new thing - who should have a positive message. They don't really seem to have it. Maybe the strategy is, consciously or part-consciously, to create sufficient rancour that a parting of the ways seems natural. Perhaps it will work.
Fox, sadly, I think that this Indy Ref debate will leave some long lasting festering political wounds among some friends and within families who are now totally split and entrenched on different sides of this debate.
Mr. D, I haven't watched QT or This Week for ages.
Morris, you have missed two or three interesting This Week episodes recently, interesting topics and excellent guests. It has definitely got its mojo back, hopefully it will continue.
Depends on what the Yes% is in September Fitalass. If its 2/3rds 1/3rds against then it'll get kicked into the long grass for a generation like the 1975 EU referendum. If however the yes campaign get 40% or more, then that won't lance the nationalist boil. Look all over Europe - Catalonia, the Basque country, Ukraine, Liga Norde in Italy etc.....everywhere people are looking to break away from larger nation states. Its a manifestation of negative social mood. I good times people come together, in bad times people drift apart.....its that simple.
Ave It and seanT on the same thread...almost as exciting as when Tom Baker came back. FWIW I believe that LD teams in Cheadle and Withington weren't mobilised for the bye-election, they were told to keep working ahead of next year.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
Since they're going to get about a fifth of the vote in your neighborhood, you must be one of housebound Labour postal vote horde or very unobservant.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this..
IIRC I was surprised by the lack of a kipper presence on the ground you reported but not organisational difficulties which they were never going to have much chance of surmounting in a safe labour seat. The kipper rise was not that long ago which is often forgotten. Time is needed in some places to get it right on the ground. It can't be rushed.
Scientific knowledge moves forward through peer reviewed studies.
Most of the climate change sceptics stay well clear of such scientific process since they are unable to put a consistent logical argument against those with deep understanding of such issues.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
Kurt I would be very happy to list dozens of peer reviewed papers that refute the AGW hypothesis.
Personally my palaeo-environment work is for professional archaeology units and whilst they do not have the same formal peer review process as science journals they are still the best you are likely to get in the field. One of the big gripes about archaeology unfortunately is that many units don't publish their work.
Right now I am working on the most extensive Late Upper Palaeolithic site in western Europe constructing a palaeo-channel model to help the archaeologists interpret the flint scatters.
It strikes me that like Hugh you are happy to get your scientific knowledge from the newspapers and TV - or worse still the internet rather than actually finding out something about the science your self. Very sad.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
Since they're going to get about a fifth of the vote in your neighborhood, you must be one of housebound Labour postal vote horde or very unobservant.
I have said 23% ages ago, that matches what you think.
That is no where, that is less that half the Labour vote.
Richard - have you contributed to any peer reviewed climate change papers or reviewed any of them?
The more pertinent question is whether any of your AGW crowd has explained the weather we've had since 1998? The answer from all your flailing around on the subject is obvious for everyone to see!
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So ŷou reckon ukip get 23% in places where they are nowhere?
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So 3% in 2010 to 23% less than four years is nowhere? I think we know how seriously to take you from now on.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So 3% in 2010 to 23% less than four years is nowhere? I think we know how seriously to take you from now on.
The thread was about UKIP threatening to take the seat from Labour on 8th Jan - I pointed out they are no where in the area, they had no chance.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So ŷou reckon ukip get 23% in places where they are nowhere?
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So ŷou reckon ukip get 23% in places where they are nowhere?
Yep, to get close to winning this seat they are no where.
I was, hence I asked if he has ever contributed towards any scientific papers on the matter - that is how scientific knowledge moves forward, not on any internet forum.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
Exactly right. That's why science is fighting a constant uphill battle against the professional anti-science water-muddiers and forum warriors.
I was, hence I asked if he has ever contributed towards any scientific papers on the matter - that is how scientific knowledge moves forward, not on any internet forum.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
Exactly right. That's why science is fighting a constant uphill battle against the professional anti-science water-muddiers and forum warriors.
We deal in facts, they deal in PR.
We? You're a scientist now?
You do not have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method.
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
I was, hence I asked if he has ever contributed towards any scientific papers on the matter - that is how scientific knowledge moves forward, not on any internet forum.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
Exactly right. That's why science is fighting a constant uphill battle against the professional anti-science water-muddiers and forum warriors.
We deal in facts, they deal in PR.
Everyone on here can see how much you've engaged in the debate tonight on AGW......instead all you can offer is just a lot of hot air badmouthing anyone who dares to question AGW. Your arrogance is quite astonishing and deeply disturbing. And you really are very dangerous people indeed, with the erroneous nonsense of AGW having led to a massive misallocation of resources by governments across the western world over the past quarter of a century.
Hunchman, I really don't think that it matters what the actual result is come the day of the referendum. This Indy Referendum has focussed a lot minds and hearts, and its causing a level of debate on Scotland's future that I cannot remember seeing at other time in my adult life. I can barely remember the Referendum on devolution now, and that is because I never really saw or experienced anything near this level of entrenched views being battled out in pubs or living rooms around the country.
Personal anecdote, my sister is the only person I know that has said that they still remain a don't know yet in this Referendum. Her other half is a dyed in the wool and passionate SNP/Yes campaigner. She jokingly told me that life could get a lot quieter if everyone she had heard claim that they would leave Scotland if their side didn't win that Referendum then went on to carry out that threat!
When the SNP lost its last indy ref, the rancour was mostly internal. They fought like ferrets in a sack, until Salmond arose to lead them again a generation later.
I suspect they will do so again. Revolutions eat themselves, even unsuccessful ones.
@foxinsoxuk Negativity is unattractive in any campaign, but in a sense it matters less in this - No is "default - carry on (pretty much) as now". No doesn't have to really sell anything. It's the Yes campaign who have to sell something, a new thing - who should have a positive message. They don't really seem to have it. Maybe the strategy is, consciously or part-consciously, to create sufficient rancour that a parting of the ways seems natural. Perhaps it will work.
Fox, sadly, I think that this Indy Ref debate will leave some long lasting festering political wounds among some friends and within families who are now totally split and entrenched on different sides of this debate.
Mr. D, I haven't watched QT or This Week for ages.
Morris, you have missed two or three interesting This Week episodes recently, interesting topics and excellent guests. It has definitely got its mojo back, hopefully it will continue.
Depends on what the Yes% is in September Fitalass. If its 2/3rds 1/3rds against then it'll get kicked into the long grass for a generation like the 1975 EU referendum. If however the yes campaign get 40% or more, then that won't lance the nationalist boil. Look all over Europe - Catalonia, the Basque country, Ukraine, Liga Norde in Italy etc.....everywhere people are looking to break away from larger nation states. Its a manifestation of negative social mood. I good times people come together, in bad times people drift apart.....its that simple.
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
I was, hence I asked if he has ever contributed towards any scientific papers on the matter - that is how scientific knowledge moves forward, not on any internet forum.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
Exactly right. That's why science is fighting a constant uphill battle against the professional anti-science water-muddiers and forum warriors.
We deal in facts, they deal in PR.
We? You're a scientist now?
You do not have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method.
Clearly you do not understand the scientific method or you would not be making the arguments you do.
I would link to Feynman's short but perfect summary of science but most people have already seen it and any scientist worth their salt knows it off by heart. For you non scientists it is all about experiments.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So ŷou reckon ukip get 23% in places where they are nowhere?
Yep, to get close to winning this seat they are no where.
Oh you're right that they never had any chance of winning the seat.... I laid them at 11/2 before any bookmaker priced it up
But to say they are nowhere gave the impression they had failed to meet expectations, when 23% would be very good for them, so apologies but it seemed contradictory
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
The scientists who are still pro global warming call the long gap in increased global temp a "hiatus" rather than flat-lining. That's the main difference. It'll take a while for that to trickle-down to the cultists though.
oh, I also remember mentioning on here on 8th January that UKIP had zero hope in Wythenshawe and Sale East, many seemed to fail to understand the area and did not believe this.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
So under 10% would be your estimate based on your post?
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
So ŷou reckon ukip get 23% in places where they are nowhere?
Yep, to get close to winning this seat they are no where.
Oh you're right that they never had any chance of winning the seat.... I laid them at 11/2 before any bookmaker priced it up
But to say they are nowhere gave the impression they had failed to meet expectations, when 23% would be very good for them, so apologies but it seemed contradictory
23% would be bang average for UKIP though they will do better than I maybe thought a bit back.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
Thanks for that Fitalass. I always thought that Salmond's independent lite campaign, particularly on the currency issue was ill-thought through. Liked Nicola Sturgeon's reply today re: the Westminster establishment. For all the hot bluster of the campaign, if this long awaited economic collapse gets serious traction by September (I don't think it will get enough for the SNP) then they're in the game. If not, then they're toast.
Has anybody got a proposed name for Scotland's new currency if independence happened?!
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Oh you did. Casually chucked in some past warm episodes just to muddy the waters. It's what you do, you cheeky "consultant geologist" you. Warming->greenhouse gases in the past, that was one of yours before you moved on wasn't it?
You don't really want to talk about aerosols though do you, you just want to sound credible enough to seed doubt to any casual reader.
Ipcc, pressure group, lol.
So how do you explain some of the earth's coldest temperatures ever experienced 450 million years ago when CO2 in the atmosphere was well over 4,000ppm? Doesn't quite fit does it!
Even if we burnt all the know fossil fuel supply on earth we'd only get up to around 3,500ppm - not that I'm suggesting it!
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Oh you did. Casually chucked in some past warm episodes just to muddy the waters. It's what you do, you cheeky "consultant geologist" you. Warming->greenhouse gases in the past, that was one of yours before you moved on wasn't it?
You don't really want to talk about aerosols though do you, you just want to sound credible enough to seed doubt to any casual reader.
Ipcc, pressure group, lol.
You see this is what you do and why you look so foolish. I link to peer reviewed papers and explain the basics of the subject whilst you make fatuous comments which have no relevance to the argument. It is no wonder you are not taken seriously.
What I said is that my speciality was Bronze Age and Roman Warm periods. I made no reference at all to grapes because they are irrelevant. Its all about rocks and soils with a bit of tree rings and large numbers of dead snail thrown in. Geology remember, not oenology.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
University College Cardiff. 1983 -1986. Geology and Archaeology
Thanks for that Fitalass. I always thought that Salmond's independent lite campaign, particularly on the currency issue was ill-thought through. Liked Nicola Sturgeon's reply today re: the Westminster establishment. For all the hot bluster of the campaign, if this long awaited economic collapse gets serious traction by September (I don't think it will get enough for the SNP) then they're in the game. If not, then they're toast.
Has anybody got a proposed name for Scotland's new currency if independence happened?!
In the reign of Charles II , Scotland first used merks , then dollars and bawbees and turners
if this long awaited economic collapse gets serious traction by September
It started in 2012 and Osborne and the No campaign have been bashing away furiously on currency ever since then. Result - 2% of the scottish public rate it most important while it is 8th in a list of priorities for Independence. If this bluster and posturing on a marginal issue really is all the No campaign have to offer to the people of scotland then I for one am hardly quaking in my boots. Nor will the rest of the Yes campaigners be.
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Oh you did. Casually chucked in some past warm episodes just to muddy the waters. It's what you do, you cheeky "consultant geologist" you. Warming->greenhouse gases in the past, that was one of yours before you moved on wasn't it?
You don't really want to talk about aerosols though do you, you just want to sound credible enough to seed doubt to any casual reader.
Ipcc, pressure group, lol.
You see this is what you do and why you look so foolish. I link to peer reviewed papers and explain the basics of the subject whilst you make fatuous comments which have no relevance to the argument. It is no wonder you are not taken seriously.
What I said is that my speciality was Bronze Age and Roman Warm periods. I made no reference at all to grapes because they are irrelevant. Its all about rocks and soils with a bit of tree rings and large numbers of dead snail thrown in. Geology remember, not oenology.
Groan. No Richard, I linked to thousands of peer reviewed papers explaining the basics, and you called them a pressure group.
And on we drone...
Actually you didn't. You linked to a political interpretation of science. It is sad that you do not now the difference.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-farage-the-wythenshawe-byelection-has-been-as-dirty-as-they-come-9122243.html
YOUR prejudice for Cameron knows no bounds.
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
We saw in Eastleigh how UKIP actually won most votes on polling day itself.
Given that the mechanisms I spoke about are fundamental to the whole basis of climate science whether anthropogenic or natural whilst temperature driven CO2 discussions are only ever seen on blog postings I think I have a pretty good idea where you are getting all your information from.
Lab: 11,923 (54.1%)
UKIP: 4,572 (20.7%)
Con: 3,630 (16.5%)
LD: 1,084 (4.9%)
BNP: 489 (2.2%)
Green: 244 (1.1%)
Loony: 115 (0.5%)
Lab, maj: 7,351 (33.3%)
Changes:
Lab: +10.0%
UKIP: +17.3%
Con: -9.1%
LD: -17.4%
BNP: -1.7%
Turnout: 29%
"Say they've been picking up voters who either haven't voted for years /voted old labour"
Nicola Bartlett says: "Postal votes being counted looks like they make up about 60 per cent of the votes."
Blimey! 60% of votes are postal. I bet there's been skulduggery by labour. The law on postal votes was suppose to help invalids and old people who found it hard to turn up at the voting booth. I bet theres not 60% of those categories in Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Bit high for Labour I expect but I bet that looks good at the end!
Of course you are probably right that Cameron will get blamed by the usual suspects whatever he does or doesn't do, purely out of class prejudice.
See the posts of Danny565 for where that leads the country. It's not a pretty sight.
UKIP 20%
CON 18%
GRN 2%
BNP 1%
LOONY 1%
LD 0%
No takers!
The Herald Newsdesk @Splashthenews 27m
Warnings from senior Coalition figure that Yes vote won't mean independence if cross-border talks fail. Herald front page http://tinyurl.com/qyqdaez
Scotland can use the pound, or tie a Scottish pound to the rUK pound, but a currency union is not in the rUK interest. We are a country that prefers not to be interfered with from abroad.
I know, but that's where the lib dems are when that sort of thing is a regular joke.
If Clegg keeps this up for much longer it won't be a joke at all.
Viva la Union!
Morris, you have missed two or three interesting This Week episodes recently, interesting topics and excellent guests. It has definitely got its mojo back, hopefully it will continue.
Most of the climate change sceptics stay well clear of such scientific process since they are unable to put a consistent logical argument against those with deep understanding of such issues.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
That says all we need to know about your familiarity with climatology.
You are utterly discredited and just make yourself look rather silly.
Reality is UKIP are no where around here.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
Nope, I estimated 23% ages ago on Twitter.
Personally my palaeo-environment work is for professional archaeology units and whilst they do not have the same formal peer review process as science journals they are still the best you are likely to get in the field. One of the big gripes about archaeology unfortunately is that many units don't publish their work.
Right now I am working on the most extensive Late Upper Palaeolithic site in western Europe constructing a palaeo-channel model to help the archaeologists interpret the flint scatters.
It strikes me that like Hugh you are happy to get your scientific knowledge from the newspapers and TV - or worse still the internet rather than actually finding out something about the science your self. Very sad.
I have said 23% ages ago, that matches what you think.
That is no where, that is less that half the Labour vote.
Not sure why this is a problem for anyone, helps the turn out massively in such areas.
The thread was about UKIP threatening to take the seat from Labour on 8th Jan - I pointed out they are no where in the area, they had no chance.
Spot on wasn't I?
http://blog.englishelections.org.uk/
Yep, to get close to winning this seat they are no where.
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/kingstanding
You do not have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method.
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Personal anecdote, my sister is the only person I know that has said that they still remain a don't know yet in this Referendum. Her other half is a dyed in the wool and passionate SNP/Yes campaigner. She jokingly told me that life could get a lot quieter if everyone she had heard claim that they would leave Scotland if their side didn't win that Referendum then went on to carry out that threat!
That would give you serious credibility on this matter.
Otherwise you just come across as an internet warrior cherry picking data to support your bias.
I would link to Feynman's short but perfect summary of science but most people have already seen it and any scientist worth their salt knows it off by heart. For you non scientists it is all about experiments.
Clearly not had his theories critically reviewed by other experts.
Yet he considers his theories to be of equal value.
That is not the scientific method.
That is not how knowledge moves forward.
But to say they are nowhere gave the impression they had failed to meet expectations, when 23% would be very good for them, so apologies but it seemed contradictory
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/wythenshawe-and-sale-east-by-election/#comments
Has anybody got a proposed name for Scotland's new currency if independence happened?!
So how well the Labour vote holds up and whether the Lib Dems keep their deposit don't really matter. Neil showing his impartial credentials there.
Even if we burnt all the know fossil fuel supply on earth we'd only get up to around 3,500ppm - not that I'm suggesting it!
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/13/global-warming-why-it-is-nonsense/
What I said is that my speciality was Bronze Age and Roman Warm periods. I made no reference at all to grapes because they are irrelevant. Its all about rocks and soils with a bit of tree rings and large numbers of dead snail thrown in. Geology remember, not oenology.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/us-scientists-achieve-27turning-point27-in-fusion-energy-quest/5258788
Who says I'm not an optimist for the future!