Has the BBC mentioned that global warming flat-lined in 1998 yet? If the EU has given up on carbon suicide that just leaves the UK but political class here won't dare say anything till the BBC finally gives in.
It hasn't flatlined since 1998, and anyone who claims it has can't interpret statistics.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I read it, Richard, but with the important caveat that the time scale for knowing for sure whether AGW is really dangerous is so long that we really ought to assume that it is and start doing something about it now.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
I'm not sure either of those follow.
To say that the timescale is too long to be sure is effectively a plea for the hypothesis to be excused the usual falsification test. If it isn't possible to show that a hypothesis is wrong, for whatever reason, that doesn't amount to a case for assuming it's right.
The precautionary principle must also apply to the precautionary principle. The Climate Change Act will reportedly cost something like £18 billion a year for 37 years. This seems unwise.
We don't know the real likelihood of a major meteor impact either. There was a doozy a few months ago in Siberia, and another in 1908. If either had landed on a city, there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths. Should we therefore be building mile-thick concrete canopies over every city, just in case? Or do we think a bit harder before spending that sort of money?
The other issue is that the IPCC compiles projections that purport to depict climate 100 years into the future. Doing this accurately requires knowing how the climate works, what the population will be, what the price of oil will be, and what technologies will exist during that period. None of these is known and none of the latter three is knowable and this exercise is thus literally worthless.
What is instructive is that the IPCC assumptions for 100 years' hence include that people will by then be around 7x wealthier than us. If so, we are the poorest generation, and even if every other assumption we make about the future is indeed 100% correct, it is clear that the taxes are being visited on the generation least able to pay them.
When I posted the same information based on what I see at the university I'm involved with, tim insisted it was an anecdote and therefore worthless.
Surely now it is statistics he will apologise?
Application number for overseas students aren't a good measure. These students can apply to as many universities as the wish, anywhere in the world. With the visa restrictions we (and many other universities) have seen an increase in the number of students who apply, are good and are offered places but end up not coming because they couldn't get a visa. They go elsewhere in the world. We've seen this time after time.
And this is affecting legitimate students, so the suggestion this is all about bogus students is ... well ... bogus. I'm sure if you asked anyone involved in admissions in Russell group universities and they'd say the same - their ability to attract overseas students has been hit by the visa changes. And these top universities aren't in the business of pandering to a black market of bogus students.
Think about it in a classic right wing market manner. The UK is a world leader in providing a service (university education). It can grow that business, and wants to grow the business and in doing so would bring very significant revenue into UK PLC (conservative estimate just on fees would be £10k a year per student, plus add on spending on rent, food etc etc). The desire of the legitimate universities to grow this business for legitimate students is being severely hampered by visa restrictions.
Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.
What is instructive is that the IPCC assumptions for 100 years' hence include that people will by then be around 7x wealthier than us. If so, we are the poorest generation, and even if every other assumption we make about the future is indeed 100% correct, it is clear that the taxes are being visited on the generation least able to pay them.
People will be 7x wealthier than us? Not if Labour get in again, they won't.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
To be honest, the best thing for you to do is go and read any of the IPCC reports. The main positive feedback forcing factors are increased water vapour (with water vapour being the biggest greenhouse gas - thankfully or we would all be dead) and increased retention of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of increased temperatures.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I read it, Richard, but with the important caveat that the time scale for knowing for sure whether AGW is really dangerous is so long that we really ought to assume that it is and start doing something about it now.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
I'm not sure either of those follow.
To say that the timescale is too long to be sure is effectively a plea for the hypothesis to be excused the usual falsification test. If it isn't possible to show that a hypothesis is wrong, for whatever reason, that doesn't amount to a case for assuming it's right.
The precautionary principle must also apply to the precautionary principle. The Climate Change Act will reportedly cost something like £18 billion a year for 37 years. This seems unwise.
We don't know the real likelihood of a major meteor impact either. There was a doozy a few months ago in Siberia, and another in 1908. If either had landed on a city, there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths. Should we therefore be building mile-thick concrete canopies over every city, just in case? Or do we think a bit harder before spending that sort of money?
The other issue is that the IPCC compiles projections that purport to depict climate 100 years into the future. Doing this accurately requires knowing how the climate works, what the population will be, what the price of oil will be, and what technologies will exist during that period. None of these is known and none of the latter three is knowable and this exercise is thus literally worthless.
What is instructive is that the IPCC assumptions for 100 years' hence include that people will by then be around 7x wealthier than us. If so, we are the poorest generation, and even if every other assumption we make about the future is indeed 100% correct, it is clear that the taxes are being visited on the generation least able to pay them.
1) The "cost" is in lost earnings through prohibiting polluting economic activity. It's not positive expenditure being spent. 2) Even if climate scientists have exagerrated the likelihood of man-made human warming, the likelihood of a sizable meteor hitting a major city would still be a tiny fraction of it 3) Building a mile-thick concrete canopy over every city would cost a lot more than £18 billion. 4) The mean person might be wealthier in a hundred years time, but that doesn't mean most people will be. American median incomes, for example, have barely budged up for decades. Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
Has the BBC mentioned that global warming flat-lined in 1998 yet? If the EU has given up on carbon suicide that just leaves the UK but political class here won't dare say anything till the BBC finally gives in.
It hasn't flatlined since 1998, and anyone who claims it has can't interpret statistics.
Well that must include Phil Jones at the CRU then.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
To be honest, the best thing for you to do is go and read any of the IPCC reports. The main positive feedback forcing factors are increased water vapour (with water vapour being the biggest greenhouse gas - thankfully or we would all be dead) and increased retention of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of increased temperatures.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
I accept they're a major area of debate, and am aware of the main proposed feedback mechanisms. I was just surprised they were larger than the direct effect. I was hoping you could point me to a more specific reference.
When I posted the same information based on what I see at the university I'm involved with, tim insisted it was an anecdote and therefore worthless.
Surely now it is statistics he will apologise?
Application number for overseas students aren't a good measure. These students can apply to as many universities as the wish, anywhere in the world. With the visa restrictions we (and many other universities) have seen an increase in the number of students who apply, are good and are offered places but end up not coming because they couldn't get a visa. They go elsewhere in the world. We've seen this time after time.
And this is affecting legitimate students, so the suggestion this is all about bogus students is ... well ... bogus. I'm sure if you asked anyone involved in admissions in Russell group universities and they'd say the same - their ability to attract overseas students has been hit by the visa changes. And these top universities aren't in the business of pandering to a black market of bogus students.
Think about it in a classic right wing market manner. The UK is a world leader in providing a service (university education). It can grow that business, and wants to grow the business and in doing so would bring very significant revenue into UK PLC (conservative estimate just on fees would be £10k a year per student, plus add on spending on rent, food etc etc). The desire of the legitimate universities to grow this business for legitimate students is being severely hampered by visa restrictions.
Result ... I think not.
The university I am involved with has seen foreign acceptances and visa issuance rise as well. Of course it is quite niche and has a specific appeal to emerging markets candidates (world leader in its secrtor, yada, yada).
You make a reasonable case that the Spectator stats are not the whole story - but at least they are indicative that the 'problem' is not as bad as people were thinking. 18 months ago people on the left - and at my own uni - were worried that *applications* would collapse because of tougher visa restrictions. That hasn't happened. Perhaps there will be lots of accepted applicants who don't get visas, but it's not all the disaster that some suggested.
The "classic right wing model", as you put it is flawed. Firstly you ignore externalities as a result of illegitimate students. Secondly there is a good argument that we would benefit more from a premium focus rather than just a volume game. Thirdly you have provided no evidence to support your claim that the desire of legitimate universities to grow this business for legitimate students is being severely hampered by visa restrictions. (For instance we delayed a planned price increase until there was more certainty on visas, but that was the only impact)
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
It's pretty cold in London today, Socrates. Brrrrrrrr.....!
By the way, on student immigration, growth of just 5% a year for international study at our universities is behind the world market growth of 7% a year. We're losing market share and we need to make much more of an effort here. It's an industry with such potential for the UK, and we really need to shift the management of our universities to be far more aware of the economic opportunity, and far more competent in how to pursue it. We can't just rely on reputation any more.
"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?
The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.
What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.
If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.
It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.
But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.
Yeah, that's pretty much the way I read it, Richard, but with the important caveat that the time scale for knowing for sure whether AGW is really dangerous is so long that we really ought to assume that it is and start doing something about it now.
If it turns out the dangers were exaggerated, little will have been lost. Other way round would be catastrophic.
Increasing the population to 70-80 million at the same time as destroying the economy through energy costs?
Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
wouldn't the sensible thing to do then be to spend the money (as per Bjorn Lomborg) on flood defences in Bangladesh? That would cost far less than £18bn and would seem to be a more proportionate response; they would also have value even if the AGW thesis is flawed.
Struan Stevenson (Con, Scotland) term of office: 1999-2014; born in 1948 Sir Robert Atkins (Con, North West) 1999-2014; 1946 Giles Chichester (Con, South West) 1994-2014; 1946 Robert Sturdy (Con, East) 1994-2014; 1944 James Elles (Con, South East) 1984-2014; 1949
Stephen Hughes (Lab, North East) 1984-2014; 1952 Brian Simpson (Lab, North West) 1989-2004 2006-2014, 1953 Michael Cashman (Lab, West Midlands) 1999-2014; 1950 Peter Skinner (Lab, East) 1994-2014; 1959
Sharown Bowles (LD, South East) 2005-2014; 1953 Fiona Hall (LD, North East) 2004-2014; 1955
Mike Nattrass (UKIP; West Midlands) 2004-2014; 1945 John Bufton (UKIP, Wales) 2009-2014; 1962
Nattrass said so in 2011, I don't know if he has changed his mind now. UKIP selection process is about to start, so we will know for sure. The others are all going as their parties have already selected or shortlisted and they aren't featured anymore.
IIRC MEPs can start drawing their pensions when they are 63.
By the way, on student immigration, growth of just 5% a year for international study at our universities is behind the world market growth of 7% a year. We're losing market share and we need to make much more of an effort here. It's an industry with such potential for the UK, and we really need to shift the management of our universities to be far more aware of the economic opportunity, and far more competent in how to pursue it. We can't just rely on reputation any more.
You're comparing a developed economy to the world, which is not really fair. Same would apply for GDP, where the global average is way higher than the G8 (even in the good times) as they 'catch up'.
By the way, on student immigration, growth of just 5% a year for international study at our universities is behind the world market growth of 7% a year. We're losing market share.
That's kind of my point - and I suspect growth in numbers actually managing to get a visa and therefore start their course will be lower still.
And there will probably be a lag effect on applications. Once more and more legitimate students apply to UK universities, have their application accepted yet cannot get a visa - well bit by bit they'll stop applying and focus on the USA, or Germany or Japan etc - where they are more likely to be welcomed rather than treated as potential black marketeers or as pawns in a game of 'reduce net migration'.
Sure clamp down on bogus students, come down like a ton of bricks on dodgy institutions with zero reputation, but allow our world class universities to thrive and compete. Because it is a global market now and we wont keep our excellent reputation for universities unless they can grow and compete.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
To be honest, the best thing for you to do is go and read any of the IPCC reports. The main positive feedback forcing factors are increased water vapour (with water vapour being the biggest greenhouse gas - thankfully or we would all be dead) and increased retention of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of increased temperatures.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
I accept they're a major area of debate, and am aware of the main proposed feedback mechanisms. I was just surprised they were larger than the direct effect. I was hoping you could point me to a more specific reference.
That's what we don't know. In the modelling done by the advocates of AGW they are given far greater prominence than by the opponents. They are the whole basis for the 'runaway warming' hypothesis although that idea is rapidly falling into disrepute.
"What is interesting in this case is that it would appear that the aircraft was only 10 minutes from landing - these are initial reports coming in - when they decided to divert to Stansted. So to actually change a destination 10 minutes from landing would certainly imply that there was some serious incident taking place."
Has the BBC mentioned that global warming flat-lined in 1998 yet? If the EU has given up on carbon suicide that just leaves the UK but political class here won't dare say anything till the BBC finally gives in.
It hasn't flatlined since 1998, and anyone who claims it has can't interpret statistics.
We have had this discussion before Socrates and agreed that 1998 is a bad year for both sides to use (bearing in mind that the rise in 1998 was used by many as 'proof' of runaway global warming).
But the flatline principle is correct even if you have to move the start date by a year or so.
I completely agree. Even the way the net migration statistic is designed is damaging. Just the way tourists are excluded, students should be too. If they later overstay, or if they change to another category, by all means add them then, but until that point they should be considered temporary migrants.
Higher education is such a great industry for us to expand in a big way. It's high margin, it's spread across the whole country rather than concentrated in London, it provides jobs for high skill and low skill people alike, and it has high levels of spillover benefits in terms of R&D and entrepreneurship. A sensible growth strategy would put this at the very centre. But to do that you'd need experts who understand the modern economy, rather than giving the brief to aging dinosaurs like Hezza, who still think SEZs are the way forward...
But the flatline principle is correct even if you have to move the start date by a year or so.
More like five years.
But yes, I think you are perfectly reasonable on this. But anyone pointing the 1998 rubbish is just regurgitating what they read in the Mail rather than looking at the numbers for themselves.
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
To be honest, the best thing for you to do is go and read any of the IPCC reports. The main positive feedback forcing factors are increased water vapour (with water vapour being the biggest greenhouse gas - thankfully or we would all be dead) and increased retention of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of increased temperatures.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
I accept they're a major area of debate, and am aware of the main proposed feedback mechanisms. I was just surprised they were larger than the direct effect. I was hoping you could point me to a more specific reference.
That's what we don't know. In the modelling done by the advocates of AGW they are given far greater prominence than by the opponents. They are the whole basis for the 'runaway warming' hypothesis although that idea is rapidly falling into disrepute.
Sorry, I meant I was surprised they were larger than the direct effect in the mainstream models from the IPCC, NASA etc...
"What is interesting in this case is that it would appear that the aircraft was only 10 minutes from landing - these are initial reports coming in - when they decided to divert to Stansted. So to actually change a destination 10 minutes from landing would certainly imply that there was some serious incident taking place."
Dunno, everything about flight-related stuff seems to be very risk-averse (*).
(*) Apart from when you've got an Austrian pilot and you're leaving a country with an unresolved nuclear accident, which was like the taxi-way version of Tokyo Drift.
I completely agree. Even the way the net migration statistic is designed is damaging. Just the way tourists are excluded, students should be too. If they later overstay, or if they change to another category, by all means add them then, but until that point they should be considered temporary migrants.
Higher education is such a great industry for us to expand in a big way. It's high margin, it's spread across the whole country rather than concentrated in London, it provides jobs for high skill and low skill people alike, and it has high levels of spillover benefits in terms of R&D and entrepreneurship. A sensible growth strategy would put this at the very centre. But to do that you'd need experts who understand the modern economy, rather than giving the brief to aging dinosaurs like Hezza, who still think SEZs are the way forward...
To penalise world class UK universities from competing in this market in this way is simply a gift to competitor universities in other parts of the world. And while our universities remain very highly regarded worldwide, there are plenty snapping at our heals which could easily overtake all but our top 2 or 3 if they get the resource from these students and invest it in the very best facilities and faculty.
The political irony of this student policy is threefold
1.Polling shows students are a category people are least bothered about. 2.When they leave they show up as emigrants, so in 2-3 years time (after the election) the net effect drops out of the numbers 3.As the numbers have fallen so the Tories lead on immigration has collapsed.
Meantime deliberate long term damage to the economy and a growth sector is done.
How would you deal with the problems and concerns that Labour's mass immigration activities have caused to this country?
In terms of point 2, that's not true if they're actually just using it as a route into the country. As the Spectator article pointed out, many students stay on.
In terms of 3, that's a natural part of politics. If a government is better than the opposition in an area, and fix that area, they eliminate their own advantage.
But the flatline principle is correct even if you have to move the start date by a year or so.
More like five years.
But yes, I think you are perfectly reasonable on this. But anyone pointing the 1998 rubbish is just regurgitating what they read in the Mail rather than looking at the numbers for themselves.
"What is interesting in this case is that it would appear that the aircraft was only 10 minutes from landing - these are initial reports coming in - when they decided to divert to Stansted. So to actually change a destination 10 minutes from landing would certainly imply that there was some serious incident taking place."
Dunno, everything about flight-related stuff seems to be very risk-averse (*).
(*) Apart from when you've got an Austrian pilot and you're leaving a country with an unresolved nuclear accident, which was like the taxi-way version of Tokyo Drift.
"Risk averse" usually means getting everyone safely on the ground ASAFP, not taking a grand tour of English airspace!!
[BTW your description of your rapid exit from Japan reminds me of that scene in Independence Day when they take off with Washington turning to flames all around them. Or maybe the bit at the end of Return of the Jedi when the Falcon is leaving the Death Star.]
Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis
Why would anybody think Somalis were the most likely passengers on a flight from Pakistan?
The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect.
Do you have anything you can link me to showing that the mainline forecasts for future temperature increases are more down to feedback effects than the direct effect?
To be honest, the best thing for you to do is go and read any of the IPCC reports. The main positive feedback forcing factors are increased water vapour (with water vapour being the biggest greenhouse gas - thankfully or we would all be dead) and increased retention of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of increased temperatures.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
I accept they're a major area of debate, and am aware of the main proposed feedback mechanisms. I was just surprised they were larger than the direct effect. I was hoping you could point me to a more specific reference.
That's what we don't know. In the modelling done by the advocates of AGW they are given far greater prominence than by the opponents. They are the whole basis for the 'runaway warming' hypothesis although that idea is rapidly falling into disrepute.
Sorry, I meant I was surprised they were larger than the direct effect in the mainstream models from the IPCC, NASA etc...
Well water vapour alone counts for between 65% and 85% of the total greenhouse effect seen on earth. It is by far the largest contributor. The modelling questions revolve around whether this changes much or whether negative feedback mechanisms counter it.
New Zealand among many English speaking countries will be rubbing its hands at Dave's idiocy
New Zealand has launched a multimillion dollar campaign to attract more foreign students who want to study in the country. The $40 million programme will include scholarships for overseas students and is particularly aimed at attracting students from key markets such as China, India, south east Asia and South America
Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment Minister Steven Joyce said that last year almost 100,000 foreign students were enrolled at one of New Zealand’s eight universities contributing NZ$2 billion to the economy and supporting 32,000 jobs.
A country of 4.5 million people with 100,000 foreign students and the UK govt is paranoid about the 400,000 in a country of 60 million
A course in High Elvish and Numenorean History should attract quite a few.
The political irony of this student policy is threefold
1.Polling shows students are a category people are least bothered about. 2.When they leave they show up as emigrants, so in 2-3 years time (after the election) the net effect drops out of the numbers 3.As the numbers have fallen so the Tories lead on immigration has collapsed.
Meantime deliberate long term damage to the economy and a growth sector is done.
20% of immigrant students are permenant residents five years later, about 50 000 per year. These are why ee cannot ignore students in the figures.
The variation is tremendous by country of orogin. Very few chinese or Korean become permenant, but a much higher percentage from the middle east and subcontinent who also are more likely to bring family.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
wouldn't the sensible thing to do then be to spend the money (as per Bjorn Lomborg) on flood defences in Bangladesh? That would cost far less than £18bn and would seem to be a more proportionate response; they would also have value even if the AGW thesis is flawed.
Not even that. Flooding in Bangladesh is nothing to do with climate change. That was just voodoo science.
The issue is that regardless of the scientific underpinnings, turning them into practicable and worthwhile courses of action is very hard, especially when science is so poor at coming up with useful and accurate predictions around anything to do with climate.
The political irony of this student policy is threefold
1.Polling shows students are a category people are least bothered about. 2.When they leave they show up as emigrants, so in 2-3 years time (after the election) the net effect drops out of the numbers 3.As the numbers have fallen so the Tories lead on immigration has collapsed.
Meantime deliberate long term damage to the economy and a growth sector is done.
How would you deal with the problems and concerns that Labour's mass immigration activities have caused to this country?
Not by excluding some of the brightest, most talented and hardworking young people in the world, who are contributing massively to our economy by paying anywhere from £10k to £30k a year to be here.
When people are concerned about immigration, somehow I don't think they are talking about someone like one of my PhD students who just graduated, having been in the UK for 7 years to obtain an MEng degree in Engineering (first class, top student in his year), and then 3 years on a PhD - one of the most charming and hard working people I know (oh by the way he is Indonesian). Having graduated he's been snapped up by an internationally leading group at the Ivy League Univ Pennsylvania - sad to see him go, but best thing for his career having been in the same university for 7 years.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Look at the graph from the Coffee House blog post linked to earlier and you'll see that we effectively do have a country based student visa policy, eg India and Pakistan sharply down, while China continues upwards
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Look at the graph from the Coffee House blog post linked to earlier and you'll see that we effectively do have a country based student visa policy, eg India and Pakistan sharply down, while China continues upwards
On the plus side yesterday the European Commission graciously offered to delay plans to destroy what's left of the UK's private sector defined benefit pension system. If that doesnt make you feel positive about the EU I dont know what will.
Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
wouldn't the sensible thing to do then be to spend the money (as per Bjorn Lomborg) on flood defences in Bangladesh? That would cost far less than £18bn and would seem to be a more proportionate response; they would also have value even if the AGW thesis is flawed.
Not even that. Flooding in Bangladesh is nothing to do with climate change. That was just voodoo science.
The issue is that regardless of the scientific underpinnings, turning them into practicable and worthwhile courses of action is very hard, especially when science is so poor at coming up with useful and accurate predictions around anything to do with climate.
Given that climate science has demonstrated no predictive skill there is nothing against which we need take precautions.
Bangladesh floods for the same reason New Orleans flooded. They both sit on vast river deltas. These rivers produce millions of tonnes of sediment each year which are deposited into the delta. The weight of the material causes the delta to sink. In a natural situation the sinking of the delta and the addition of new material sort of balance each other out.
The trouble is that we now build on our deltas. In doing this we canalize the rivers and the delta tributaries. This has the effect of preventing the build up of sediment to counteract the sinking. This doesn't mean the sinking stops - in fact it gets worse because we then push the sediment further out into the basin where the effect is even greater and so the delta sinks faster.
Building on deltas is a really stupid idea even if there is no global sea change level at all.
Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
wouldn't the sensible thing to do then be to spend the money (as per Bjorn Lomborg) on flood defences in Bangladesh? That would cost far less than £18bn and would seem to be a more proportionate response; they would also have value even if the AGW thesis is flawed.
Not even that. Flooding in Bangladesh is nothing to do with climate change. That was just voodoo science.
The issue is that regardless of the scientific underpinnings, turning them into practicable and worthwhile courses of action is very hard, especially when science is so poor at coming up with useful and accurate predictions around anything to do with climate.
Given that climate science has demonstrated no predictive skill there is nothing against which we need take precautions.
While some hyperbole has been used, all is not rubbish. The Russians are evacuating one of their Arctic stations as an emergency because of melting ice. Arctic ice has been thinning and this is a fact !
I completely agree. Even the way the net migration statistic is designed is damaging. Just the way tourists are excluded, students should be too. If they later overstay, or if they change to another category, by all means add them then, but until that point they should be considered temporary migrants.
Higher education is such a great industry for us to expand in a big way. It's high margin, it's spread across the whole country rather than concentrated in London, it provides jobs for high skill and low skill people alike, and it has high levels of spillover benefits in terms of R&D and entrepreneurship. A sensible growth strategy would put this at the very centre. But to do that you'd need experts who understand the modern economy, rather than giving the brief to aging dinosaurs like Hezza, who still think SEZs are the way forward...
To penalise world class UK universities from competing in this market in this way is simply a gift to competitor universities in other parts of the world. And while our universities remain very highly regarded worldwide, there are plenty snapping at our heals which could easily overtake all but our top 2 or 3 if they get the resource from these students and invest it in the very best facilities and faculty.
Can you give any evidence that this is happening, or is this just your fear/expectation?
It was fear/expectation that the number of applications would fall as well.
Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis Probably Somalis I heard a rumour it's Somalis
Why would anybody think Somalis were the most likely passengers on a flight from Pakistan?
Maybe Daves cut in University numbers for immigrants is the reason some Somalis go to Pakistan for training & education?
The political irony of this student policy is threefold
1.Polling shows students are a category people are least bothered about. 2.When they leave they show up as emigrants, so in 2-3 years time (after the election) the net effect drops out of the numbers 3.As the numbers have fallen so the Tories lead on immigration has collapsed.
Meantime deliberate long term damage to the economy and a growth sector is done.
20% of immigrant students are permenant residents five years later, about 50 000 per year. These are why ee cannot ignore students in the figures.
The variation is tremendous by country of orogin. Very few chinese or Korean become permenant, but a much higher percentage from the middle east and subcontinent who also are more likely to bring family.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Stop pussyfooting about. Just say you do not like foreigners. Period !
Building on deltas is a really stupid idea even if there is no global sea change level at all.
It might be a really stupid idea, due to flooding, but the reason people live there is partially for that reason. It is very fertile country. Crops are easy to grow there, e.g. rice.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Look at the graph from the Coffee House blog post linked to earlier and you'll see that we effectively do have a country based student visa policy, eg India and Pakistan sharply down, while China continues upwards
Maybe someone should tell Dave while he's desperately trying to grab back some of the Indian students who are heading to Australia and Canada
The fall in Indian students is mainly due to the extremely high level that Labour accidentally let in
"When the Labour government’s points based system (PBS) was first introduced in 2008, student applications had to be temporarily suspended in some parts of South Asia amid fears that the dramatic rise in applications was fuelled in part by fraudulent applications. In the first year of Labour’s Points Based System (PBS) alone the National Audit Office estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 ‘students’ entered the UK to work and not study."
Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
wouldn't the sensible thing to do then be to spend the money (as per Bjorn Lomborg) on flood defences in Bangladesh? That would cost far less than £18bn and would seem to be a more proportionate response; they would also have value even if the AGW thesis is flawed.
Not even that. Flooding in Bangladesh is nothing to do with climate change. That was just voodoo science.
The issue is that regardless of the scientific underpinnings, turning them into practicable and worthwhile courses of action is very hard, especially when science is so poor at coming up with useful and accurate predictions around anything to do with climate.
Given that climate science has demonstrated no predictive skill there is nothing against which we need take precautions.
Bangladesh floods for the same reason New Orleans flooded. They both sit on vast river deltas. These rivers produce millions of tonnes of sediment each year which are deposited into the delta. The weight of the material causes the delta to sink. In a natural situation the sinking of the delta and the addition of new material sort of balance each other out.
The trouble is that we now build on our deltas. In doing this we canalize the rivers and the delta tributaries. This has the effect of preventing the build up of sediment to counteract the sinking. This doesn't mean the sinking stops - in fact it gets worse because we then push the sediment further out into the basin where the effect is even greater and so the delta sinks faster.
Building on deltas is a really stupid idea even if there is no global sea change level at all.
Partly, but the main reason New Orleans flooded *so badly*, and also why Bangladesh is prone to disastrous flooding, is that they're both at or below sea level in hurricane zones and suffer from storm surges.
Oh Mr Smithson, how begrudging you are to merely fob off the fact that Labour are really doing quite well. I know it irks you to admit it because you seem hate that party, well it comes across on your posts that you do
The political irony of this student policy is threefold
1.Polling shows students are a category people are least bothered about. 2.When they leave they show up as emigrants, so in 2-3 years time (after the election) the net effect drops out of the numbers 3.As the numbers have fallen so the Tories lead on immigration has collapsed.
Meantime deliberate long term damage to the economy and a growth sector is done.
20% of immigrant students are permenant residents five years later, about 50 000 per year. These are why ee cannot ignore students in the figures.
The variation is tremendous by country of orogin. Very few chinese or Korean become permenant, but a much higher percentage from the middle east and subcontinent who also are more likely to bring family.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
Stop pussyfooting about. Just say you do not like foreigners. Period !
I have no problem with foreigners. If i did i wouldnot work in the most multicultural business in one of britains most multicultural cities. I just do not like people abusing visa rules to migrate while pretending to be students. apply honestly is all I ask!
Comments
To say that the timescale is too long to be sure is effectively a plea for the hypothesis to be excused the usual falsification test. If it isn't possible to show that a hypothesis is wrong, for whatever reason, that doesn't amount to a case for assuming it's right.
The precautionary principle must also apply to the precautionary principle. The Climate Change Act will reportedly cost something like £18 billion a year for 37 years. This seems unwise.
We don't know the real likelihood of a major meteor impact either. There was a doozy a few months ago in Siberia, and another in 1908. If either had landed on a city, there would have been hundreds of thousands of deaths. Should we therefore be building mile-thick concrete canopies over every city, just in case? Or do we think a bit harder before spending that sort of money?
The other issue is that the IPCC compiles projections that purport to depict climate 100 years into the future. Doing this accurately requires knowing how the climate works, what the population will be, what the price of oil will be, and what technologies will exist during that period. None of these is known and none of the latter three is knowable and this exercise is thus literally worthless.
What is instructive is that the IPCC assumptions for 100 years' hence include that people will by then be around 7x wealthier than us. If so, we are the poorest generation, and even if every other assumption we make about the future is indeed 100% correct, it is clear that the taxes are being visited on the generation least able to pay them.
And this is affecting legitimate students, so the suggestion this is all about bogus students is ... well ... bogus. I'm sure if you asked anyone involved in admissions in Russell group universities and they'd say the same - their ability to attract overseas students has been hit by the visa changes. And these top universities aren't in the business of pandering to a black market of bogus students.
Think about it in a classic right wing market manner. The UK is a world leader in providing a service (university education). It can grow that business, and wants to grow the business and in doing so would bring very significant revenue into UK PLC (conservative estimate just on fees would be £10k a year per student, plus add on spending on rent, food etc etc). The desire of the legitimate universities to grow this business for legitimate students is being severely hampered by visa restrictions.
Result ... I think not.
The role and extent of these two positive feedback mechanisms along with the effect of negative feedback mechanisms is one of the main areas of debate in the whole AGW argument.
Makes sense to let them off in Essex, Britain's unruly person hub.
2) Even if climate scientists have exagerrated the likelihood of man-made human warming, the likelihood of a sizable meteor hitting a major city would still be a tiny fraction of it
3) Building a mile-thick concrete canopy over every city would cost a lot more than £18 billion.
4) The mean person might be wealthier in a hundred years time, but that doesn't mean most people will be. American median incomes, for example, have barely budged up for decades. Should places like Bangladesh start to flood a lot more regularly, I'm pretty confident they would be a lot poorer. Particularly the dead ones.
You make a reasonable case that the Spectator stats are not the whole story - but at least they are indicative that the 'problem' is not as bad as people were thinking. 18 months ago people on the left - and at my own uni - were worried that *applications* would collapse because of tougher visa restrictions. That hasn't happened. Perhaps there will be lots of accepted applicants who don't get visas, but it's not all the disaster that some suggested.
The "classic right wing model", as you put it is flawed. Firstly you ignore externalities as a result of illegitimate students. Secondly there is a good argument that we would benefit more from a premium focus rather than just a volume game. Thirdly you have provided no evidence to support your claim that the desire of legitimate universities to grow this business for legitimate students is being severely hampered by visa restrictions. (For instance we delayed a planned price increase until there was more certainty on visas, but that was the only impact)
Tory/UKIP 42%
Labour 42%
Struan Stevenson (Con, Scotland) term of office: 1999-2014; born in 1948
Sir Robert Atkins (Con, North West) 1999-2014; 1946
Giles Chichester (Con, South West) 1994-2014; 1946
Robert Sturdy (Con, East) 1994-2014; 1944
James Elles (Con, South East) 1984-2014; 1949
Stephen Hughes (Lab, North East) 1984-2014; 1952
Brian Simpson (Lab, North West) 1989-2004 2006-2014, 1953
Michael Cashman (Lab, West Midlands) 1999-2014; 1950
Peter Skinner (Lab, East) 1994-2014; 1959
Sharown Bowles (LD, South East) 2005-2014; 1953
Fiona Hall (LD, North East) 2004-2014; 1955
Mike Nattrass (UKIP; West Midlands) 2004-2014; 1945
John Bufton (UKIP, Wales) 2009-2014; 1962
Nattrass said so in 2011, I don't know if he has changed his mind now. UKIP selection process is about to start, so we will know for sure. The others are all going as their parties have already selected or shortlisted and they aren't featured anymore.
IIRC MEPs can start drawing their pensions when they are 63.
Do you have source for this number?
Probably some lairy yobs coming back from a week's sun and cheap booze on Lahore's notorious costa jihada...
What's wrong with Ibiza FFS?
And there will probably be a lag effect on applications. Once more and more legitimate students apply to UK universities, have their application accepted yet cannot get a visa - well bit by bit they'll stop applying and focus on the USA, or Germany or Japan etc - where they are more likely to be welcomed rather than treated as potential black marketeers or as pawns in a game of 'reduce net migration'.
Sure clamp down on bogus students, come down like a ton of bricks on dodgy institutions with zero reputation, but allow our world class universities to thrive and compete. Because it is a global market now and we wont keep our excellent reputation for universities unless they can grow and compete.
"What is interesting in this case is that it would appear that the aircraft was only 10 minutes from landing - these are initial reports coming in - when they decided to divert to Stansted. So to actually change a destination 10 minutes from landing would certainly imply that there was some serious incident taking place."
If not Somali at least dark.
But the flatline principle is correct even if you have to move the start date by a year or so.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif.
and for more detail
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
I completely agree. Even the way the net migration statistic is designed is damaging. Just the way tourists are excluded, students should be too. If they later overstay, or if they change to another category, by all means add them then, but until that point they should be considered temporary migrants.
Higher education is such a great industry for us to expand in a big way. It's high margin, it's spread across the whole country rather than concentrated in London, it provides jobs for high skill and low skill people alike, and it has high levels of spillover benefits in terms of R&D and entrepreneurship. A sensible growth strategy would put this at the very centre. But to do that you'd need experts who understand the modern economy, rather than giving the brief to aging dinosaurs like Hezza, who still think SEZs are the way forward...
But yes, I think you are perfectly reasonable on this. But anyone pointing the 1998 rubbish is just regurgitating what they read in the Mail rather than looking at the numbers for themselves.
(*) Apart from when you've got an Austrian pilot and you're leaving a country with an unresolved nuclear accident, which was like the taxi-way version of Tokyo Drift.
I agree with point 1.
In terms of point 2, that's not true if they're actually just using it as a route into the country. As the Spectator article pointed out, many students stay on.
In terms of 3, that's a natural part of politics. If a government is better than the opposition in an area, and fix that area, they eliminate their own advantage.
[BTW your description of your rapid exit from Japan reminds me of that scene in Independence Day when they take off with Washington turning to flames all around them. Or maybe the bit at the end of Return of the Jedi when the Falcon is leaving the Death Star.]
The variation is tremendous by country of orogin. Very few chinese or Korean become permenant, but a much higher percentage from the middle east and subcontinent who also are more likely to bring family.
I would have no problem with a visa policy that varied by country of origin so that countries where ethere was a high re emmigration rate had easier terms.
The issue is that regardless of the scientific underpinnings, turning them into practicable and worthwhile courses of action is very hard, especially when science is so poor at coming up with useful and accurate predictions around anything to do with climate.
Where, for example, are the 50 million climate refugees we were promised?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html
James Hansen forecast 25 years ago that New York would be underwater within 40 years. The water level is rising, but the rate hasn't changed in ~150 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
Given that climate science has demonstrated no predictive skill there is nothing against which we need take precautions.
When people are concerned about immigration, somehow I don't think they are talking about someone like one of my PhD students who just graduated, having been in the UK for 7 years to obtain an MEng degree in Engineering (first class, top student in his year), and then 3 years on a PhD - one of the most charming and hard working people I know (oh by the way he is Indonesian). Having graduated he's been snapped up by an internationally leading group at the Ivy League Univ Pennsylvania - sad to see him go, but best thing for his career having been in the same university for 7 years.
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2013/05/graph-visas.png
The trouble is that we now build on our deltas. In doing this we canalize the rivers and the delta tributaries. This has the effect of preventing the build up of sediment to counteract the sinking. This doesn't mean the sinking stops - in fact it gets worse because we then push the sediment further out into the basin where the effect is even greater and so the delta sinks faster.
Building on deltas is a really stupid idea even if there is no global sea change level at all.
It was fear/expectation that the number of applications would fall as well.
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20120824&page=4
MT “@AntonyLoveless: I was asked how close QRA jets get on intercept. This is from #Falklands. They get THIS close pic.twitter.com/90cU0MYiAy”
https://twitter.com/AntonyLoveless/status/337935110978543616/photo/1
"When the Labour government’s points based system (PBS) was first introduced in 2008, student applications had to be temporarily suspended in some parts of South Asia amid fears that the dramatic rise in applications was fuelled in part by fraudulent applications. In the first year of Labour’s Points Based System (PBS) alone the National Audit Office estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 ‘students’ entered the UK to work and not study."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/