Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Hopefully Dave's victory, were it to happen, will be as comprehensive as Caesar's victory at Pharsalus
the Norwegians will most certainly stop them fishing when they get there
The Scots will dictate Norwegian fisheries policy.
You couldn't make it up (well actually it appears you could)
That really is scraping the barrel. The Scots would have nothing directly to do with it - the agreement with Norway is based on an EU agreement with Norway with access for fishing to Scottish waters as the quid pro quo. If Scotland is not permitted to remain in the EU, the EU-Norway agreement lapses (and NB Scotland on that model is no longer in the EU anyway), and EU boats no longer have rights for fishing in Norwegian waters. So unless the EU and Norway come tto a new agreement then that's it for EU boats. And most countries would certainly stop illicit fishing.
In all of the above, the Scots have absolutely zero involvement - so in no way can the Scots, Mr Salmond, etc., be seen to dictate Norwegian fisheries policy. Mr Salmond's analysis is a perfectly accurate summary of the situation. The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
Mr. Me, the larger part of the UK population also want to leave the EU and bring back hanging.
Yes, so if someone were to claim that only fascists wanted to bring back the death penalty they would be implying either that the majority of the UK population were fascists or that they were an idiot with no idea of what they are talking about.
So it is with a claim that only comedians still trust climate scientists.
On scientists - the scientific method is the best we have, but I have relatively little faith in those proponents of climate change, which was called global warming. They've stopped calling it that, to try and reduce the number of people who might realise that their warming forecasts are completely wrong.
The IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] was established in 1988. The idea that using "Climate Change" as a descriptor in place of "Global Warming" as some sort of way to confuse people is complete hogwash. Both terms have been used both in the past and the present.
The "hockey stick" has been confirmed multiple times by a large number of different scientists working with different types of proxy records and different statistical methods.
The people who have told you that it has in some way been "disproved" are telling you a bare-faced lie, and if that's the best sort of argument they have one has to seriously question whether it is worth listening to anything else they might claim, whether it is about comparing IPCC forecasts to recent temperature changes, or estimating the recent trend in global surface temperatures - which are still going up.
Really, anyone who believes such rubbish as "The hockey stick was a work of fiction" has to take a long hard look at themselves and their credulity of charlatans.
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Hopefully Dave's victory, were it to happen, will be as comprehensive as Caesar's victory at Pharsalus
But is it Ed or Nige who is Pompey? And who are the Ptolemaic faction in this analogy?
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Hopefully Dave's victory, were it to happen, will be as comprehensive as Caesar's victory at Pharsalus
But is it Ed or Nige who is Pompey? And who are the Ptolemaic faction in this analogy?
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Last week I was convinced the Euro result would be (4th)LD, (3rd)Con, with UKIP/Lab vying for first and second. - I said at the time I didn't envy those punters betting on the Euro and after yesterday’s EUro poll, things just got a even more complicated.
Mr. Me, I didn't cite the IPCC regarding the name change, it was a reference to the general view of the theory which was widely labelled global warming and then shifted to climate change. Climate change is used far more often now, and is a quite daft term as the climate has always and will always change.
On the hockey stick, it was my understanding that whatever numbers were fed into the initial formula would lead to a rise.
You didn't refer to the IPCC getting its forecasts wrong and then increasing its confidence in climate change/global warming. Wouldn't a scientist making a wrong prediction either reduce his confidence in his theory or amend it to account for the new data? [My scepticism is here, incidentally].
You also didn't refer to the dodgy East Anglian e-mails.
Reassuring advice for World Cup tourists: don't scream if mugged, as you might get killed, and don't ever go outside with anything expensive that can be seen as you may be robbed.
the Norwegians will most certainly stop them fishing when they get there
The Scots will dictate Norwegian fisheries policy.
You couldn't make it up (well actually it appears you could)
That really is scraping the barrel. The Scots would have nothing directly to do with it - the agreement with Norway is based on an EU agreement with Norway with access for fishing to Scottish waters as the quid pro quo. If Scotland is not permitted to remain in the EU, the EU-Norway agreement lapses (and NB Scotland on that model is no longer in the EU anyway), and EU boats no longer have rights for fishing in Norwegian waters. So unless the EU and Norway come tto a new agreement then that's it for EU boats. And most countries would certainly stop illicit fishing.
In all of the above, the Scots have absolutely zero involvement - so in no way can the Scots, Mr Salmond, etc., be seen to dictate Norwegian fisheries policy. Mr Salmond's analysis is a perfectly accurate summary of the situation. The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
Ever more ridiculous. You'd be best advised to give up on this line of argument.
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Hopefully Dave's victory, were it to happen, will be as comprehensive as Caesar's victory at Pharsalus
Cameron as Caesar. Now that is a fantasy. TSE has laid an egg there.
It's funny Nick. The broader issue of course, is living wisely. Might as well try mordant humour. But judging by our continuing and expanding consumerism I can't see to what the word "alarmist", I sometimes hear, relates.
Living wisely/addressing expanding consumerism = stopping short of course of not using my own computer to post on the internet whenever I want.
Don't follow you. "wise" is interpretable (of course). For what it's worth, this PC is 12 yrs old.
“Alex Salmond has become a liability for the Yes Camp because of the dishonest and arrogant way he has put forward his case,” he said. “It is clear that many people do not believe a word the First Minister says and are angry that he has put his referendum before the running of the country.
Mr. Carnyx, impressive of Thatcher to kill Scots over 20 years after leaving office whilst at the same time being dead.
Mr. StClare, Miliband is perfectly safe (as Labour leader). Too late to axe, and the most obvious replacement is a serial traffic offender.
I'm thinking in particular of the peripheral housing estates and high-rises.
How many of them were built in the 80s? And was Westminster or the local council responsible? The housing scheme (as they were called) I grew up in was built in the early 60s.
50s, 60s, to some extent the 70s, that sort of time (and quite a few prewar, though obviously not high rise or so far out).
Quite. So nothing at all to do with Thatcher.
Of course we forget that for the people at the time, when the schemes started, these houses were an amazing leap forward from what they had been used to. As time went on, they were not.
All perfectly correct, though that is not saying much when one considers what the folk were moving from; and I did not say that Mrs T was the author of Glasgow Council policies.
However I was trying to make the point that the pensions issue depends on the health/longevity issue which is (a) very complex and (b) has far deeper roots economically and chronologically than even the first devolved administrations, which is what the original posting was about.
Mortality to pension age and beyond is effectively a summation of policies and events right back to the 1920s. If one wanted to lay party-political blame then it would have to be in large part on the parties then in power - but also one would need to discuss the factors affecting them. Which would end up an economic history of Scotland since the Great War. By the same token, the effects of devolution and independence on pension age won't be completely clear till the latter half of the 21st century!
The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
Let's get this right. You are now claiming that when Eck said " the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access " what he meant was "I think the Norwegians will stop you fishing"
Unspoofable. He said a stupid thing. Everyone (except the faithful) knows it.
There is a point at which you might be sensibly advised to stop digging. That point was earlier in this thread.
Good morning. Two polls giving the Tories a lead - and on the morning Labour's fancy new American hire flies in to town for his first meeting with Ed Miliband: the effect on Conservative MPs will be equal to an adrenaline shot to the heart. They have been desperate for evidence that the tide is turning, and now they have it. Even if we now get polls showing a Labour lead, Tories at last have evidence that things can go their way, and that they are steadily overhauling Labour. Polls are about psychology as much as about facts. They shape what people like me say, and they affect the mood of politicians. This morning's talk is of a boost to the Tories, but more telling will be the blow to Labour.
Mr. Me, I didn't cite the IPCC regarding the name change, it was a reference to the general view of the theory which was widely labelled global warming and then shifted to climate change. Climate change is used far more often now, and is a quite daft term as the climate has always and will always change.
On the hockey stick, it was my understanding that whatever numbers were fed into the initial formula would lead to a rise.
You didn't refer to the IPCC getting its forecasts wrong and then increasing its confidence in climate change/global warming. Wouldn't a scientist making a wrong prediction either reduce his confidence in his theory or amend it to account for the new data? [My scepticism is here, incidentally].
You also didn't refer to the dodgy East Anglian e-mails.
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Hopefully Dave's victory, were it to happen, will be as comprehensive as Caesar's victory at Pharsalus
Cameron as Caesar. Now that is a fantasy. TSE has laid an egg there.
I wish Dave were as brilliant as Caesar.
He's more Xerxes I, with George Osborne to play the role of Artabanus.
I'm not sure who will play the role of Aspamitres the eunuch
The point is that the access to Norwegian waters is a reciprocal EU arrangement which depends on Norwegian access to Scots waters.
No, it isn't. Access to Norwegian waters is guaranteed by International Law
For fishing rights, it isn't - which is the point (I have already amended my post to reflect this omission).
So to be clear, you believe that Scotland will have the right to prevent other nations boats transiting Scottish waters enroute to fish Norwegian waters?
No, not in the least. But the Norwegians will most certainly stop them fishing when they get there, if their EU agreement lapses because Scotland is excluded from the EU.
So That's an admission Scotland will not have automatic right to be a member of the EU which blows a different hole in Salmond' s pronouncements.
I hardly think so, as Mr Salmond was himself discussing the implciations of Scottish exit from the EU in the speech.
the Norwegians will most certainly stop them fishing when they get there
The Scots will dictate Norwegian fisheries policy.
You couldn't make it up (well actually it appears you could)
That really is scraping the barrel. The Scots would have nothing directly to do with it - the agreement with Norway is based on an EU agreement with Norway with access for fishing to Scottish waters as the quid pro quo. If Scotland is not permitted to remain in the EU, the EU-Norway agreement lapses (and NB Scotland on that model is no longer in the EU anyway), and EU boats no longer have rights for fishing in Norwegian waters. So unless the EU and Norway come tto a new agreement then that's it for EU boats. And most countries would certainly stop illicit fishing.
In all of the above, the Scots have absolutely zero involvement - so in no way can the Scots, Mr Salmond, etc., be seen to dictate Norwegian fisheries policy. Mr Salmond's analysis is a perfectly accurate summary of the situation. The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
Ever more ridiculous. You'd be best advised to give up on this line of argument.
I honestly can't see what is wrong with it. Plainly we are talking at complete cross purposes, so I'll happily [edit} give up trying to persuade you, and will let my last suggestion lie.
The point is that the access to Norwegian waters is a reciprocal EU arrangement which depends on Norwegian access to Scots waters.
No, it isn't. Access to Norwegian waters is guaranteed by International Law
For fishing rights, it isn't - which is the point (I have already amended my post to reflect this omission).
So to be clear, you believe that Scotland will have the right to prevent other nations boats transiting Scottish waters enroute to fish Norwegian waters?
Waken up sadone , he clarified that several times in big letters so that you people could understand what he was in fact saying.
Meanwhile, the unpredicted and unexplained (by climate change believers) plateau in global temperature continues. And we know from history (Henry VIII and Caligula/Claudius' reigns all saw rising temperatures) the climate can get warmer without any industrial activity whatsoever.
Heretics were being burnt on an industrial scale in the reign of Henry VIII, and that of his elder daughter.
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
I am not a scientist (tm). I am, however, an engineer, even if that is in software, and I understand modelling and its limitations fairly well.
I am not sponsored, either politically or corporately. (*) Yet my view differs from yours and so is, in your mind, cr@p.
It is this sort of 'argument' from the pro-AGW side that loses the debate.
(*) Although I am open to offers if any organisation wants to waste money on sponsor me. ;-)
I wonder if that buried poll we heard of showing the Nats in with a shout could be behind this? Whatever, with the Tory Renaissance in the polls, keeping the union together is going to be ever harder.
@Carlotta - you are right. While supporters of the three main parties tear their hair out at their own leaders' inadequacies, Kippers and Nats see their leaders as messiahs. In many ways though, that's what makes them such tricky and at times formidable opponents.
Bob, another one not right in the head. I am for independence , I am not in the SNP and I do not have a fixation on Mr Salmond. It is unionists , London newspapers and cretins who have this fixation, they are unable to differ reality from fiction.
Mr. Song, I wish you were right. I'd love to be sponsored by a corporation.
Are you an evil corporation with lots of money and a burning hatred of climate change? Would you like to give me money? Please write to: Morris Dancer Castle Morris Dancer Yorkshire
PS please remember to enclose a big bag of money.
Also, the world isn't burning. Temperatures have plateaued. And temperatures can and have risen without industrial activity in the past anyway.
By the time of the next Euros, will all of the main parties have rebranded themselves as "A Conservative Party", "A Labour Party", etc. in a desperate struggle to be at the top of the ballot paper? Surely better to select the order at random to stop this nonsense. There's even a party starting with a number 4 that comes above A in one of the regions. Right, I'm off to found the "Zeroth Law Party"
The point is that the access to Norwegian waters is a reciprocal EU arrangement which depends on Norwegian access to Scots waters.
No, it isn't. Access to Norwegian waters is guaranteed by International Law
For fishing rights, it isn't - which is the point (I have already amended my post to reflect this omission).
So to be clear, you believe that Scotland will have the right to prevent other nations boats transiting Scottish waters enroute to fish Norwegian waters?
Waken up sadone , he clarified that several times in big letters so that you people could understand what he was in fact saying.
The quote from the First Minister:
The alternative – the fishing fleets of 12 countries being denied any access to Scottish waters and as a consequence, their access to Norwegian waters, which is also dependent on Scottish access ... is clearly absurd
How is it about fishing, if as consequence of Scotland blocking 'fishing' rights, they no longer have *access* to Norwegian waters?
the Norwegians will most certainly stop them fishing when they get there
The Scots will dictate Norwegian fisheries policy.
You couldn't make it up (well actually it appears you could)
That really is scraping the barrel. The Scots would have nothing directly to do with it - the agreement with Norway is based on an EU agreement with Norway with access for fishing to Scottish waters as the quid pro quo. If Scotland is not permitted to remain in the EU, the EU-Norway agreement lapses (and NB Scotland on that model is no longer in the EU anyway), and EU boats no longer have rights for fishing in Norwegian waters. So unless the EU and Norway come tto a new agreement then that's it for EU boats. And most countries would certainly stop illicit fishing.
In all of the above, the Scots have absolutely zero involvement - so in no way can the Scots, Mr Salmond, etc., be seen to dictate Norwegian fisheries policy. Mr Salmond's analysis is a perfectly accurate summary of the situation. The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
Carnyx, it has to have less than four letters for Scott to be able to understand it. Your reply will take him about 6 months to digest and he will still have his affliction re Mr Salmond. You are wasting intellect trying to debate with fools.
Meanwhile, the unpredicted and unexplained (by climate change believers) plateau in global temperature continues. And we know from history (Henry VIII and Caligula/Claudius' reigns all saw rising temperatures) the climate can get warmer without any industrial activity whatsoever.
Heretics were being burnt on an industrial scale in the reign of Henry VIII, and that of his elder daughter.
In order for the carbon content to equal that pumped out by industrial processes each heretic would have to weigh several thousand metric tons.
Mr. Eagles, no, and it's hugely unlikely. Still reckon UKIP will win, although second and third seem less certain now. Second and third could be close, as could fourth and fifth. If Clegg loses to the Greens...
Last week I was convinced the Euro result would be (4th)LD, (3rd)Con, with UKIP/Lab vying for first and second. - I said at the time I didn't envy those punters betting on the Euro and after yesterday’s EUro poll, things just got a even more complicated.
1) UKIP 2 or 3rd Lab/Con 4th or 5th LD/Green is what I think will happen now. Lab- Con battle for 2nd is interesting.
Meanwhile, the unpredicted and unexplained (by climate change believers) plateau in global temperature continues. And we know from history (Henry VIII and Caligula/Claudius' reigns all saw rising temperatures) the climate can get warmer without any industrial activity whatsoever.
Heretics were being burnt on an industrial scale in the reign of Henry VIII, and that of his elder daughter.
In order for the carbon content to equal that pumped out by industrial processes each heretic would have to weigh several thousand metric tons.
Some (such as the Wigtown Martyrs) were tied up to a stake for the sea to take. Therefore that's carbon sequestration.
On the hockey stick, it was my understanding that whatever numbers were fed into the initial formula would lead to a rise.
There is not enough time or space to deal properly with all the points you raise, so I will concentrate on this one because I think it exemplifies how Science works in a general way, and why all the obfuscation and lies of the so-called sceptics is complete rubbish.
I know enough of statistics to know that the criticism of the Principal Components Analysis used for the "hockey stick" was unfounded, but even with the best will in the world the majority of the population will not know enough of statistics to make this judgement themselves.
As you know, Science does not operate on trust - "Take nobody's word for it" is the motto of the Royal Society for good reason.
So, when you have an eye-catching result such as the "hockey stick" other scientists will naturally be interested in testing that result to see whether they can confirm or contradict it. They will not simply take the word of the researchers involved.
This is what has happened with the "hockey stick". Many other groups of scientists have looked at the data, some using new data that was not available to the "hockey stick" scientists, most using different statistical techniques. All of them have confirmed the findings of the "hockey stick".
It therefore becomes largely irrelevant whether the statistical method used for the original "hockey stick" was appropriate or not. It has been shown that the result is not sensitive to the data or methods used - and so it is a robust result.
This is the way that Science proceeds. This is the way in which Scientists can move from an interesting hypothesis to a well-established theory supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that is generally accepted to be correct by the consensus opinion.
And yet you seem to be happy to take the word of a self-declared sceptic who tells you that one tiny part of this accumulation of evidence is dodgy. That isn't scepticism. That is believing what you want to believe.
A typical error by our friends south of the border. Whiskey is not consumed with porridge oats, however partaking of the water of life while sowing a few, has brought many a Scot into existence.
Meanwhile, the unpredicted and unexplained (by climate change believers) plateau in global temperature continues. And we know from history (Henry VIII and Caligula/Claudius' reigns all saw rising temperatures) the climate can get warmer without any industrial activity whatsoever.
Heretics were being burnt on an industrial scale in the reign of Henry VIII, and that of his elder daughter.
In order for the carbon content to equal that pumped out by industrial processes each heretic would have to weigh several thousand metric tons.
Some (such as the Wigtown Martyrs) were tied up to a stake for the sea to take. Therefore that's carbon sequestration.
Only to the degree that the C entering the marine ecosystem ended up as carbonate ooze on the deep sea floor, rather than back into the atmosphere as CO2.
You would only get full sequestration during the Killing Times - and only for those Covenanters massacred by Dalziel's dragoons which ended up in peat bogs ...
Man made climate change may be a myth (or not). But someone had better invest in a new London tidal barrier soon, or it will revert to swampland again, instead of remaining a festering cesspit.
On the hockey stick, it was my understanding that whatever numbers were fed into the initial formula would lead to a rise.
There is not enough time or space to deal properly with all the points you raise, so I will concentrate on this one because I think it exemplifies how Science works in a general way, and why all the obfuscation and lies of the so-called sceptics is complete rubbish.
I know enough of statistics to know that the criticism of the Principal Components Analysis used for the "hockey stick" was unfounded, but even with the best will in the world the majority of the population will not know enough of statistics to make this judgement themselves.
As you know, Science does not operate on trust - "Take nobody's word for it" is the motto of the Royal Society for good reason.
So, when you have an eye-catching result such as the "hockey stick" other scientists will naturally be interested in testing that result to see whether they can confirm or contradict it. They will not simply take the word of the researchers involved.
This is what has happened with the "hockey stick". Many other groups of scientists have looked at the data, some using new data that was not available to the "hockey stick" scientists, most using different statistical techniques. All of them have confirmed the findings of the "hockey stick".
It therefore becomes largely irrelevant whether the statistical method used for the original "hockey stick" was appropriate or not. It has been shown that the result is not sensitive to the data or methods used - and so it is a robust result.
This is the way that Science proceeds. This is the way in which Scientists can move from an interesting hypothesis to a well-established theory supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that is generally accepted to be correct by the consensus opinion.
And yet you seem to be happy to take the word of a self-declared sceptic who tells you that one tiny part of this accumulation of evidence is dodgy. That isn't scepticism. That is believing what you want to believe.
Excellent post. I was shaken recently when our local amateur meteorologist showed me the hockey stick from local data, with no more processing than simple time-averaging for each consecutive group of years.
Straw clutch from me - does anyone think these polls will 'scare' some voters back to Labour?
Lol - polls will go up and down - your great leader has said so this morning - but yes I think you've caught a veritable bale there. It may push more Scors into the yes camp which is also not good news for he of the gigantic intellect.
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
LOL. When you have no scientific basis for your argument fall back on the old memes of attacking people on spurious links to 'big oil' and the Koch brothers.
Actually there are dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals (a number of which I have linked to on here before) that explain why the scientific basis for AGW is flawed. Of course the so called scientists who perpetuate the myths about AGW don't want to accept that because it proves that their claims fail the Feynman test.
The people fiddling with the data are the proponents of AGW. More and more people are coming to realise this now which is why the alarmists are becoming ever more strident and desperate in their claims.
Edit: By the way, linking to blogs to prove your point when it comes to science, particularly to those that have been so thoroughly discredited already - bad business. Just goes to show you don't actually have the science to back up your claims.
temperatures can and have risen without industrial activity in the past anyway.
Write me 500 words on why that is a logically fallacious argument.
I will help you with this excerpt from a fictitious court case. ------ "But your honour, people have always been dying, all throughout human history, even before I was born. How can the prosecutor claim that I was responsible for those deaths?"
Straw clutch from me - does anyone think these polls will 'scare' some voters back to Labour?
Perhaps you should be asking why these voters are prepared to abandon Labour in the first place. – Whatever their reasons, having done so, I'd find it hard to believe they would then give the resultant polling a seconds thought.
The other flip side with the two polls showing a Tory lead, for those Tory activists out there campaigning, it will give them an extra spring in their step.
IndyRef continues to provide endless fun, but I think Nicola Sturgeon's argument that people should vote for independence so that Scotland can maintain its proud tradition of having one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe is perhaps the funniest political point I've ever heard.
There have been a few anecdotes on here over the last few days from PBposters reporting they have had Con literature, emails from 'Dave' comments on adverts on here.
Is there a remote chance that the message that they have put out in the last few days is widespread and having an effect?
Anyone one seen IOS and his algorithms last night?
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
"While the world burns is a touch dramatic for a couple of degrees temperature increase... Even if we accept that global warming is taking place, there is a balance to find - and that should not involve extra taxes or levies falling on yr average man or mass windfarms in places of outstanding natural beauty.
Meanwhile, the unpredicted and unexplained (by climate change believers) plateau in global temperature continues. And we know from history (Henry VIII and Caligula/Claudius' reigns all saw rising temperatures) the climate can get warmer without any industrial activity whatsoever.
Heretics were being burnt on an industrial scale in the reign of Henry VIII, and that of his elder daughter.
Cold is God's way of telling us to burn Catholics.
Mr. Me, doesn't the hockey stick show continually rising temperatures, though? And don't we have an (unexplained by climate change/global warming) plateau?
That's even without considering the fact that the Earth can (and has) warm without any industrial activity at all.
If a scientific theory predicts a certain result but that result does not conform to observations of the real world then that theory is demonstrably flawed. It may be total nonsense or it may need to be refined, either way until the theory matches the data the theory is false.
Does the Hockey stick theory match the data? Does it explain the lack of warming over the past decade? Does it explain the warm period in recorded history?
I wonder if that buried poll we heard of showing the Nats in with a shout could be behind this? Whatever, with the Tory Renaissance in the polls, keeping the union together is going to be ever harder.
@Carlotta - you are right. While supporters of the three main parties tear their hair out at their own leaders' inadequacies, Kippers and Nats see their leaders as messiahs. In many ways though, that's what makes them such tricky and at times formidable opponents.
Is that really surprising? UKIP and the SNP each have a distinct aim which is the motivating force behind their support, have risen to prominence pretty quickly, and could be said to be on the brink of something spectacular. Conservatives and LibDem supporters both have reasons to think their leader has compromised them where as Labours is unpopular with their own supporters.
The real reason for the "messiah" complex you speak of is probably because Salmond and Farage are leading a party that could actually make a tangible, historical change rather than fiddle at the margins of current status quo, and while the cause is gaining momentum, human nature dictates that any follies are overlooked by supporters. All that matters is the end of the Union/EU membership
1. C2s massively weighted up as in the Ashcroft poll, but pretty much level pegging between Con and Lab at 31% - 29% in ICM. So Tory lead cannot be explained away as a dodgy sample of C2s in the Ashcroft poll.
2. Number of 2010 Lib Dem to Labour switchers looks low to me, with more 2010 Lib Dems now saying they will vote Green. This may be a temporary effect due to the European elections, but does illustrate a danger for Miliband, if Red Liberals who abandoned Labour in 2010 because of the betrayals of office decide to find another alternative to Labour to vote for.
3. UKIP only a few percentage points behind Labour in both the Midlands and the South. If the Midlands do end up anything like Con:Lab:UKIP 35:24:22 then surely not even efficient vote distribution can save Labour?
Sorry, but a "couple of extra degrees" will have a dramatic effect. Possibly the Sahara might become a rain forest, and Antarctica might become habitable. On the other hand, things might go badly astray, Whatever happens, the effects will not be "minor".
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
It is this sort of 'argument' from the pro-AGW side that loses the debate.
Quite. As soon as someone labels 'sceptics' as 'deniers' the proponent of AGW reveals themselves as a cultist rather than a scientist......
Just seen last night's polling - LOL - very amusing.
Welcome back Plato, - why not stick around a little longer?, you're missing all the fun ; )
Hi Guys!
I saw the story in the Times and couldn't resist having a looksee - this is rib-tickling stuff.
Can anyone give me a quick update on what's been happening? I've been talking US TV shows/renewals/cancellations/newbies for weeks and no idea re polling recently.
We can perhaps think of those saying UKIP in GE polling as falling into two camps. Firstly, those who will actually vote UKIP in the GE; these are predominantly ex-Conservatives or ex-abstainers. Secondly, the froth that is linked to the Euro campaign; these are more ex-Labour (hence our polling dip), but will return to the fold when the Euro excitement dies down, and UKIP are back at 10% in the GE polling, bring Labour back above 35%. At least, I hope that's what is happening.
Sorry, but a "couple of extra degrees" will have a dramatic effect. Possibly the Sahara might become a rain forest, and Antarctica might become habitable. On the other hand, things might go badly astray, Whatever happens, the effects will not be "minor".
I'll be 6 foot under by then, and I'll be doing my bit for climate change too by not having any kids. No need to feel guilty here !
Miss Plato, UKIP have risen steadily, and been topping Euro polls for a while now (15% or so on Westminster).
Labour have drifted from fighting to top the Euro poll to battling with the blues for second (one poll had Conservatives winning but that's probably an outlier).
The two parties have been 3 points or apart on most polls for Westminster, but yesterday two had the blues ahead, including ICM.
The Lib Dems are engaged in a Euro deathmatch with the Greens for fourth. Nick Clegg is tempting the voters like a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
There have been a few anecdotes on here over the last few days from PBposters reporting they have had Con literature, emails from 'Dave' comments on adverts on here.
Is there a remote chance that the message that they have put out in the last few days is widespread and having an effect?
There's something in that, I think. In both the flat that I rent in London and the place I stay in Broxtowe there has been lots of Tory literature recently - particularly striking in the former since they are putting up ZERO candidates in the local elections there (Holloway), so it's all about the Euros. Labour's push will be along shortly.
Oddly nobody in either place has got the postal vote letter that parties usually regard as essential (something we got wrong in my patch in 2010). The PVs came and went without any special push from anybody.
There have been a few anecdotes on here over the last few days from PBposters reporting they have had Con literature, emails from 'Dave' comments on adverts on here.
Is there a remote chance that the message that they have put out in the last few days is widespread and having an effect?
There's something in that, I think. In both the flat that I rent in London and the place I stay in Broxtowe there has been lots of Tory literature recently - particularly striking in the former since they are putting up ZERO candidates in the local elections there (Holloway), so it's all about the Euros. Labour's push will be along shortly.
Oddly nobody in either place has got the postal vote letter that parties usually regard as essential (something we got wrong in my patch in 2010). The PVs came and went without any special push from anybody.
Not sure people are swayed that much by leaflets . I think the main reason is that people have just got their April pay packet and seen their tax decrease due to big rises in the personal allowance. Also maybe 1% of the tory rise is due to the class war labour PPB. It didn't work in the Nantwich by election and it won't work now . Especially puts of floating voters
PS not sure why 'Not' appears at top . Don't want to sound flippant!!
The annoying thing about warmists is not so much the 'are they right / are they wrong' argument but the political prescriptions they espouse. Even if they are right then the correct political response is still not to screw our economy unilaterally. If the world is going to get a smidgin warmer over the next century it will be e.g. China and India that determine this - not us. Our policy should be purely pragmatic. It will happen. It will be less than the alarmists claim. We should address policy to adapting (and for a cold northern country this might not be a negative!). Build some flood defences. And shut up. But to ruin ourselves on the altar of Gaia is utterly, utterly insane.
Just seen last night's polling - LOL - very amusing.
Welcome back Plato, - why not stick around a little longer?, you're missing all the fun ; )
Hi Guys!
I saw the story in the Times and couldn't resist having a looksee - this is rib-tickling stuff.
Can anyone give me a quick update on what's been happening? I've been talking US TV shows/renewals/cancellations/newbies for weeks and no idea re polling recently.
Tories on here are wetting their pants and Ed is crap sums it up.
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
It is this sort of 'argument' from the pro-AGW side that loses the debate.
Quite. As soon as someone labels 'sceptics' as 'deniers' the proponent of AGW reveals themselves as a cultist rather than a scientist......
I agree that aspects of climate science is infected with religious zeal. In fact the pro v anti passions could be analogous to the reformation vs counter reformation.
I take the view that average temperature may well be occurring, and we may have a level of responsibility. The debate shouldn't in my view be over what is going on but what to do about it. In this I find that the idea we have to deliberately set out to alter nature troubling because I'm always concerned when human arrogance comes to the fore.
Sorry, but a "couple of extra degrees" will have a dramatic effect. Possibly the Sahara might become a rain forest, and Antarctica might become habitable. On the other hand, things might go badly astray, Whatever happens, the effects will not be "minor".
The Sahara becoming a rainforest sounds interesting, have the jungles of Central Africa crept north at all recently ?
Mind you they'd probably be chopped down for logging as fast as they grew
Just seen last night's polling - LOL - very amusing.
Welcome back Plato, - why not stick around a little longer?, you're missing all the fun ; )
Hi Guys!
I saw the story in the Times and couldn't resist having a looksee - this is rib-tickling stuff.
Can anyone give me a quick update on what's been happening? I've been talking US TV shows/renewals/cancellations/newbies for weeks and no idea re polling recently.
EdM's 35% Maginot Line has been breached and Labour forces are falling back in disarray.
There have been a few anecdotes on here over the last few days from PBposters reporting they have had Con literature, emails from 'Dave' comments on adverts on here.
Is there a remote chance that the message that they have put out in the last few days is widespread and having an effect?
Labour's push will be along shortly.
A big one, over a cliff?
One suspects that any literature will fail to mention Ed.
Miss Plato, UKIP have risen steadily, and been topping Euro polls for a while now (15% or so on Westminster).
Labour have drifted from fighting to top the Euro poll to battling with the blues for second (one poll had Conservatives winning but that's probably an outlier).
The two parties have been 3 points or apart on most polls for Westminster, but yesterday two had the blues ahead, including ICM.
The Lib Dems are engaged in a Euro deathmatch with the Greens for fourth. Nick Clegg is tempting the voters like a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
Brilliant - I'm crossing my legs :^ )
I do love ICM! I haven't seen any major political stories in ages - Maria Miller was nothing to remember, a bit of fuss about Kippers saying stupid things again, and that was about it over the last few months - did I miss anything else?
I can talk about the cancellation and out-wash of tv shows on writers and directors - but that's about it. I've been on a political desert island. I have watched several hundred hours of US drama though...
Possibly, possibly not... While people tend to concentrate on the "increase in temperature", the effects are more likely to effect humanity in shifting weather patterns. The warming of the ocean driving the "El Nino" is an obvious pointer to the effect a relatively small change can have on entire continents.
Has anyone been spared the sharp edge of @MalcolmG's sword? Today he has deemed me "not right in the head".
Bob, I was nice to you as you are normally sensible and can debate a topic. However there will be no quarter for the numpties , you know the FOUR amigos ( or is it amoebas ) I am talking about.
@NickPalmer Have a word with Labour HQ about the PPB, its a disaster and it could cost you Broxtowe mate ! I need Labour to come down a touch but not too far or too fast too.
Comments
In all of the above, the Scots have absolutely zero involvement - so in no way can the Scots, Mr Salmond, etc., be seen to dictate Norwegian fisheries policy. Mr Salmond's analysis is a perfectly accurate summary of the situation. The interpretattions placed on his wording are a different matter.
So it is with a claim that only comedians still trust climate scientists. The IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] was established in 1988. The idea that using "Climate Change" as a descriptor in place of "Global Warming" as some sort of way to confuse people is complete hogwash. Both terms have been used both in the past and the present. The "hockey stick" has been confirmed multiple times by a large number of different scientists working with different types of proxy records and different statistical methods.
The people who have told you that it has in some way been "disproved" are telling you a bare-faced lie, and if that's the best sort of argument they have one has to seriously question whether it is worth listening to anything else they might claim, whether it is about comparing IPCC forecasts to recent temperature changes, or estimating the recent trend in global surface temperatures - which are still going up.
Really, anyone who believes such rubbish as "The hockey stick was a work of fiction" has to take a long hard look at themselves and their credulity of charlatans.
Where is your scepticism?
On the hockey stick, it was my understanding that whatever numbers were fed into the initial formula would lead to a rise.
You didn't refer to the IPCC getting its forecasts wrong and then increasing its confidence in climate change/global warming. Wouldn't a scientist making a wrong prediction either reduce his confidence in his theory or amend it to account for the new data? [My scepticism is here, incidentally].
You also didn't refer to the dodgy East Anglian e-mails.
However I was trying to make the point that the pensions issue depends on the health/longevity issue which is (a) very complex and (b) has far deeper roots economically and chronologically than even the first devolved administrations, which is what the original posting was about.
Mortality to pension age and beyond is effectively a summation of policies and events right back to the 1920s. If one wanted to lay party-political blame then it would have to be in large part on the parties then in power - but also one would need to discuss the factors affecting them. Which would end up an economic history of Scotland since the Great War. By the same token, the effects of devolution and independence on pension age won't be completely clear till the latter half of the 21st century!
Unspoofable. He said a stupid thing. Everyone (except the faithful) knows it.
There is a point at which you might be sensibly advised to stop digging. That point was earlier in this thread.
Good morning. Two polls giving the Tories a lead - and on the morning Labour's fancy new American hire flies in to town for his first meeting with Ed Miliband: the effect on Conservative MPs will be equal to an adrenaline shot to the heart. They have been desperate for evidence that the tide is turning, and now they have it. Even if we now get polls showing a Labour lead, Tories at last have evidence that things can go their way, and that they are steadily overhauling Labour. Polls are about psychology as much as about facts. They shape what people like me say, and they affect the mood of politicians. This morning's talk is of a boost to the Tories, but more telling will be the blow to Labour.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
He's more Xerxes I, with George Osborne to play the role of Artabanus.
I'm not sure who will play the role of Aspamitres the eunuch
*sees opinion polls* *makes coffee* *waits patiently for Dan Hodges blog post attacking Ed Miliband*
Arf.
I am not sponsored, either politically or corporately. (*) Yet my view differs from yours and so is, in your mind, cr@p.
It is this sort of 'argument' from the pro-AGW side that loses the debate.
(*) Although I am open to offers if any organisation wants to waste money on sponsor me. ;-)
Are you an evil corporation with lots of money and a burning hatred of climate change? Would you like to give me money? Please write to:
Morris Dancer
Castle Morris Dancer
Yorkshire
PS please remember to enclose a big bag of money.
Also, the world isn't burning. Temperatures have plateaued. And temperatures can and have risen without industrial activity in the past anyway.
I know enough of statistics to know that the criticism of the Principal Components Analysis used for the "hockey stick" was unfounded, but even with the best will in the world the majority of the population will not know enough of statistics to make this judgement themselves.
As you know, Science does not operate on trust - "Take nobody's word for it" is the motto of the Royal Society for good reason.
So, when you have an eye-catching result such as the "hockey stick" other scientists will naturally be interested in testing that result to see whether they can confirm or contradict it. They will not simply take the word of the researchers involved.
This is what has happened with the "hockey stick". Many other groups of scientists have looked at the data, some using new data that was not available to the "hockey stick" scientists, most using different statistical techniques. All of them have confirmed the findings of the "hockey stick".
It therefore becomes largely irrelevant whether the statistical method used for the original "hockey stick" was appropriate or not. It has been shown that the result is not sensitive to the data or methods used - and so it is a robust result.
This is the way that Science proceeds. This is the way in which Scientists can move from an interesting hypothesis to a well-established theory supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that is generally accepted to be correct by the consensus opinion.
And yet you seem to be happy to take the word of a self-declared sceptic who tells you that one tiny part of this accumulation of evidence is dodgy. That isn't scepticism. That is believing what you want to believe.
Batman v Superman director Snyder teases glimpse of new Batmobile
Zack Snyder starts to lift secrecy over Ben Affleck's new wheels, but title of film clash with Henry Cavill's superhero still unknown
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/may/13/new-batmobile-glimpse-batman-v-superman-zack-snyder?CMP=twt_gu
You would only get full sequestration during the Killing Times - and only for those Covenanters massacred by Dalziel's dragoons which ended up in peat bogs ...
And yes, the polls will revert to Labour leads in the short medium term.
But someone had better invest in a new London tidal barrier soon, or it will revert to swampland again, instead of remaining a festering cesspit.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn
http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-poll-may-2014
Actually there are dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals (a number of which I have linked to on here before) that explain why the scientific basis for AGW is flawed. Of course the so called scientists who perpetuate the myths about AGW don't want to accept that because it proves that their claims fail the Feynman test.
The people fiddling with the data are the proponents of AGW. More and more people are coming to realise this now which is why the alarmists are becoming ever more strident and desperate in their claims.
Edit: By the way, linking to blogs to prove your point when it comes to science, particularly to those that have been so thoroughly discredited already - bad business. Just goes to show you don't actually have the science to back up your claims.
Stan james 20/1 tories most votes
Paddypower tories to get more than 13 euro seats 8/11
William hills -tories to get most votes in south east 6/5
I will help you with this excerpt from a fictitious court case.
------
"But your honour, people have always been dying, all throughout human history, even before I was born. How can the prosecutor claim that I was responsible for those deaths?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626699/Darling-sidelined-save-UK-lobby-Brown-bigger-role-against-SNP.html
For the sake of the Union England must not win the World Cup in Brazil
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100271168/for-the-sake-of-the-union-england-must-not-win-the-world-cup-in-brazil/
"it will give them an extra spring in their step."
Fire up their "zimmers"?
Is there a remote chance that the message that they have put out in the last few days is widespread and having an effect?
Anyone one seen IOS and his algorithms last night?
That's even without considering the fact that the Earth can (and has) warm without any industrial activity at all.
Miss Plato, super to see you on.
If a scientific theory predicts a certain result but that result does not conform to observations of the real world then that theory is demonstrably flawed. It may be total nonsense or it may need to be refined, either way until the theory matches the data the theory is false.
Does the Hockey stick theory match the data? Does it explain the lack of warming over the past decade? Does it explain the warm period in recorded history?
Yes, it seems Miliband has gone from a core-vote strategy, to a floor-vote strategy.
Is that really surprising? UKIP and the SNP each have a distinct aim which is the motivating force behind their support, have risen to prominence pretty quickly, and could be said to be on the brink of something spectacular. Conservatives and LibDem supporters both have reasons to think their leader has compromised them where as Labours is unpopular with their own supporters.
The real reason for the "messiah" complex you speak of is probably because Salmond and Farage are leading a party that could actually make a tangible, historical change rather than fiddle at the margins of current status quo, and while the cause is gaining momentum, human nature dictates that any follies are overlooked by supporters. All that matters is the end of the Union/EU membership
1. C2s massively weighted up as in the Ashcroft poll, but pretty much level pegging between Con and Lab at 31% - 29% in ICM. So Tory lead cannot be explained away as a dodgy sample of C2s in the Ashcroft poll.
2. Number of 2010 Lib Dem to Labour switchers looks low to me, with more 2010 Lib Dems now saying they will vote Green. This may be a temporary effect due to the European elections, but does illustrate a danger for Miliband, if Red Liberals who abandoned Labour in 2010 because of the betrayals of office decide to find another alternative to Labour to vote for.
3. UKIP only a few percentage points behind Labour in both the Midlands and the South. If the Midlands do end up anything like Con:Lab:UKIP 35:24:22 then surely not even efficient vote distribution can save Labour?
Sorry, but a "couple of extra degrees" will have a dramatic effect. Possibly the Sahara might become a rain forest, and Antarctica might become habitable.
On the other hand, things might go badly astray,
Whatever happens, the effects will not be "minor".
I saw the story in the Times and couldn't resist having a looksee - this is rib-tickling stuff.
Can anyone give me a quick update on what's been happening? I've been talking US TV shows/renewals/cancellations/newbies for weeks and no idea re polling recently.
Labour have drifted from fighting to top the Euro poll to battling with the blues for second (one poll had Conservatives winning but that's probably an outlier).
The two parties have been 3 points or apart on most polls for Westminster, but yesterday two had the blues ahead, including ICM.
The Lib Dems are engaged in a Euro deathmatch with the Greens for fourth. Nick Clegg is tempting the voters like a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
Oddly nobody in either place has got the postal vote letter that parties usually regard as essential (something we got wrong in my patch in 2010). The PVs came and went without any special push from anybody.
UKIP vote share
Over/Under 28%
5/6
5/6
Vote share match bet
1/2 LD
6/4 Green
PS not sure why 'Not' appears at top . Don't want to sound flippant!!
I take the view that average temperature may well be occurring, and we may have a level of responsibility. The debate shouldn't in my view be over what is going on but what to do about it. In this I find that the idea we have to deliberately set out to alter nature troubling because I'm always concerned when human arrogance comes to the fore.
Mind you they'd probably be chopped down for logging as fast as they grew
One suspects that any literature will fail to mention Ed.
I do love ICM! I haven't seen any major political stories in ages - Maria Miller was nothing to remember, a bit of fuss about Kippers saying stupid things again, and that was about it over the last few months - did I miss anything else?
I can talk about the cancellation and out-wash of tv shows on writers and directors - but that's about it. I've been on a political desert island. I have watched several hundred hours of US drama though...
Possibly, possibly not...
While people tend to concentrate on the "increase in temperature", the effects are more likely to effect humanity in shifting weather patterns.
The warming of the ocean driving the "El Nino" is an obvious pointer to the effect a relatively small change can have on entire continents.
Will send you over an email with some stats on it later today.