Mr Smithson seems fixated on "Why Dave cannot win " threads
Indeed he does.
The Daily Mail is the UK's most frequented news website.
53 million visits per month.
We've done this upthread, there's a difference between a dead-tree newspaper, where once they've bought it the reader will read anything mildly entertaining that the editors put in front of them, and the internet where you only read the specific article you've clicked on. This is the fundamental logistical difference that allows Ed Miliband to shore up his core vote by trolling the right-wing press, whereas previous Labour leaders would have had to humiliate himself sucking up to the right-wing press, then presumably (just thinking through the human angle here, no particular specific knowledge) do whatever little he could to restore his self-esteem by secretly banging the proprietor's wife.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
Such polling as we have of London doesn't suggest a particularly big swing to Labour. The most recent Yougov poll gave a swing of 4% to them, compared to 2010.
I mean that, by definition, in science you must be able to reproduce the results and check the workings. In the case of a computer model, there might be, as you say, straightforward coding errors, and there will certainly be implicit assumptions. Essentially the climate-change models were black boxes which other scientists weren't allowed to look into. By definition that is not science, the models were not peer-reviewed nor reproducible by other scientists.
As I said, I was absolutely flabbergasted when this came out. The University of Norwich went to great lengths to try to keep the model secret. This totally shook my faith in the climate change 'science', since it clearly wasn't science if it was secret and unverifiable.
Your point about the Roslin Institute is wrong: other scientists could reproduce the experiment. What's more, if there was anything unclear about how to do it, then a scientist can always ask the original authors of the paper and would expect to get a sensible reply, not 'you are not allowed to know'.
We both agree that the methods used must be made clear enough in the paper that other scientists can reproduce the results. There is no particular reason why this has to extend to handing over the specific implementation of the method in the code that the scientist has written - in some circumstances it would be better for another scientist to implement the method in their own code - precisely to unearth any implicit assumptions that might be incorrect. If everyone simply re-uses each others code then such implicit assumptions go unnoticed and unchallenged.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
The main point is that science proceeds by independent repeatability, and not by audit. Political opponents of climate science are trying to create an onerous climate of audit so that they can rubbish the results of the science by pointing to inconsequential minor errors. That is not scientific.
@MaxPB On the tax avoidance issue , you have a point. The problem is that the evidence points to collusion in tax evasion.
No it doesn't. There is just a nod and wink that there might possibly be tax evasion overseas, but I don't believe it for a minute. It is just an attempt by the BBC and Guardian to make more of this than really exists.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
Not sure what you complaint is. UKIP are in reality polling at a higher level? It's possible there is a methodology problem with UKIP as untried territory in a GE at this level. But we'll only really know after the fact.
I don't understand the complaint. 15% is a high figure.
@MaxPB On the tax avoidance issue , you have a point. The problem is that the evidence points to collusion in tax evasion.
No it doesn't. There is just a nod and wink that there might possibly be tax evasion overseas, but I don't believe it for a minute. It is just an attempt by the BBC and Guardian to make more of this than really exists.
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
Not sure what you complaint is. UKIP are in reality polling at a higher level? It's possible there is a methodology problem with UKIP as untried territory in a GE at this level. But we'll only really know after the fact.
A couple of years ago - on here - I was accused of being a wascist for feeling intimidated on the Whitechapel Tube platform because I cited the behaviour of an obviously Muslim gang of men that I found aggressive, threatening and made me feel like White Trash Sex Fodder.
I will resist the desire to name at least one of those who self-righteously jumped to condemn my feelings. Let's just say they're in the Metropoliti demographic. That their hypocritical post annoyed me is obvious. It wasn't @Roger.
I was musing on political correctness the other day and wondered if I meet an unrepresentative bunch of people.
I find that generally the young and/or posh/well-off and/or liberal and/or Metropolitan tend to be PC. The old and/or poor and/or Muslim tend to be politically incorrect. The latter group definitely anti-semitic and homophobic,
I don't claim to meet a representative group of any of them.
But if I'm correct (a big assumption), then it would be likely that many places would have problems like Rotherham with PC. The upper echelons would be where the blind eye was turned.
So a young teacher turned Labour/LD MP living in London would be guaranteed to be so.
Specific to the UK, I don't see what HSBC have done wrong. They have acted legally to help their clients avoid tax. If politicians want to stop it then they need to reform the tax code, not just point at perfectly legal behaviour and shout and scream about it.
As for overseas conduct, there is only an implication that they broke tax laws in other countries, but I'm sure HSBC have their own legal experts to ensure they didn't cross the line. This all seems to be a witch hunt aimed at the wrong people. Wealthy people and banks will use whatever means necessary to reduce tax exposure, it is up to governments worldwide to change the tax code and tax treaties so that avoidance isn't so trivial.
I don't think it's safe to assume that they didn't cross the line - I suspect the issue here is that whatever the letter of the law said, the line of actual enforcement moved, because in the merry pre-Lehman days nobody was particularly bothered, then after the world economy crashed and flew off everybody was desperate to find some more money for the government to spend, and simultaneously exceedingly narked off at the banks.
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
This is a non-story.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
Not sure what you complaint is. UKIP are in reality polling at a higher level? It's possible there is a methodology problem with UKIP as untried territory in a GE at this level. But we'll only really know after the fact.
I don't understand the complaint. 15% is a high figure.
Nick Clegg would sell his Granny to be on 15%.....
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
This is a non-story.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
Such polling as we have of London doesn't suggest a particularly big swing to Labour. The most recent Yougov poll gave a swing of 4% to them, compared to 2010.
Some private polling that I have heard about, says that UKIP are now polling much better in the northern outer London constituencies, but alas, not yet in the outer southern boroughs were I live.
If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.
It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.
It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.
Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.
There is no conspiracy.
There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.
That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
This is a non-story.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
@edmundintokyo Charges against the bank are being brought by several countries I believe, but I must have misread....possibly.
Quite possibly but that's consistent with the de-facto enforcement line moving. All developed countries are in the same situation: No money, voters exceedingly peeved at the banks.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
There are surely a few alternatives...
-Balls 'itching' to debate Osborne
-Balls sacks...
-Balls bags...
I nearly did a Balls sack headline on PB a few years ago. I opted for "Is one Ed better than two" instead
Specific to the UK, I don't see what HSBC have done wrong.
Not everyone is an amoral free market ideologue. Most normal people see things as right or wrong or moral or immoral beyond the legal system and pound signs.
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
This is a non-story.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
Just sheer naked greed Charles I am afraid.
Poor man wanna be rich Rich man wanna be King, But the King ain't satisfied until he rules everything.
Bruce Springsteen 1978
Puts up the closed sign does the man in the corner shop Serves his last then he says goodbye to him He knows it is a hard life But its nice to be your own boss really
Walks off home does the last customer He is jealous of the man in the corner shop He is sick of working at the factory Says it must be nice to be your own boss (really)
Sells cigars to the boss from the factory He is jealous is the man in the corner shop He is sick of struggling so hard Says it must be nice to own a factory
Paul Weller 1980
There's a man I meet Walks up our street He's a worker for the council Has been twenty years And he takes no lip off nobody And litter off the gutter Puts it in a bag And never thinks to mutter And he packs his lunch in a Sunblest bag The children call him Bogie He never lets on But I know 'cause he once told me He let me know a secret About the money in his kitty He's gonna buy a dinghy Gonna call her Dignity
And I'll sail her up the west coast Through villages and towns I'll be on my holidays They'll be doing their rounds They'll ask me how I got her I'll say I saved my money They'll say isn't she pretty That ship called Dignity
@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"
@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."
This is a non-story.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
'Samsung is warning customers to avoid discussing personal information in front of their smart television set.'
That's quite something - don't have a conversation in the presence of a domestic appliance.
I wonder who these third parties might be, that process the information?
In theory, anyone who works on the voice recognition software. You'd want to take samples and go through them and see what your system was getting wrong in real life, and fix the system so it didn't get it wrong any more.
In practice, everything leaks, so ultimately anyone who wants to listen to it. The same will be true of all the other devices in your house, which will also capture and transmit data.
PS. Someone was saying that the way you used to recognize tech-savvy geeks was by the amount of digital gadgets they have, but now / in future you recognize them by how much pre-digital analog/mechanical stuff they have...
"Doctors working fewer hours for more money, bent coppers, or tax inspectors agreeing advantageous deals with telecommunications companies?"
Having just come out of the dentist you might have a point. I was reminded of the Private Eye cover "It looks like we'll have to take out your whole wallet"
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.
It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.
It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.
Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.
There is no conspiracy.
There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.
That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
If there are errors in the data you would expect scientists to adjust the data to correct for those errors.
It is plausible that most errors would involve recording temperatures that are too high, because they mostly tend to revolve around not protecting the thermometers from heating by the sun.
It is also not unreasonable to expect that observations are generally more accurate now, and so most adjustments will be made to historical data.
Thus it would not be surprising that adjustments will increase the historical trend.
There is no conspiracy.
There may not be a conspiracy but it is well-known that scientists will selectively use or promote data that fits their pet theory or expectation.
That is why peer-reviewing is used. We do a lot of this and find that we reject many applications for funding due to the author(s) being somewhat myopic at times.
Don't bother. Deniers take a position of faith, not logic. You wouldn't argue with a man who insisted transistors must work with tiny pixies because they can't grasp quantum mechanics.
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
There are surely a few alternatives...
-Balls 'itching' to debate Osborne
-Balls sacks...
-Balls bags...
I nearly did a Balls sack headline on PB a few years ago. I opted for "Is one Ed better than two" instead
John Cleese's three rules of comedy: no puns; no puns; no puns.
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
I hope LG don't join in - they'll overhear me swooning over various TV characters and cackling over the piss-poor performances of others.
Maybe this is a MORE accurate metric than simple viewing figures? Jack Bauer is my Go To Guy for laughs when Los Angeles is under nuclear bomb attack AGAIN...
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.
It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack
As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.
It does add something however, it confirms that Tories will do anything to help their chums, and are unprincipled lying toerags.
PS On your last point , it is unbridled greed assisted by compliant politicians
It's been under the Coalition that HMRC has pursued them - I suspect a lot of settlements rather than prosecutions because tax evaders, by nature, have money: if someone will cough up the full amount owed, plus interest, plus penalties there is little upside in prosecuting them.
On the unbridled greed: I suspect human nature hasn't changed that much! But perhaps it has. If so, not for the better
I'm not sure that cost-benefit analysis is correct. If a few very wealthy people suffer public odium, criminal penalties and exclusion from polite society, it may make tax evasion seem considerably less attractive to others who might contemplate the idea. Short term cost may well lead to long term gain.
If HSBC have been aiding and abetting criminal offences, then they need to have the book thrown at them.
That's a fair point: I suspect the HMRC is incentivised on maximising proceeds, so we'd need to look at that
Agreed. Prosecutions are difficult and expensive. For instances, the US authorities recently lost a prosecution they levelled against a former executive of a Swiss bank, which had admitted helping US citizens evade US tax.
Such prosecutions are - if successful - very good at sending a clear message - and I agree with Antifrank on that - but HMRC's mission is to raise money, as much as possible and as easily as possible. So if they can get a lot of people coughing up they will see that as a better outcome than embarking on lengthy and uncertain prosecutions.
" You need venture capital to cure cancer; you need people who are willing to wager huge stakes on the success of these therapies. And I am afraid those investors will always be fired not just by a desire to better the world, but by a good old-fashioned profit motive – and the last thing we need is a Labour government that fundamentally hates the idea of profit."
"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."
Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.
Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!
Is more I dream of doing a headline on PB that says "Balls Deep in trouble"
There are surely a few alternatives...
-Balls 'itching' to debate Osborne
-Balls sacks...
-Balls bags...
I nearly did a Balls sack headline on PB a few years ago. I opted for "Is one Ed better than two" instead
John Cleese's three rules of comedy: no puns; no puns; no puns.
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
@Cyclefree It has always been difficult to prosecute the rich and powerful. Prosecuting the poor is so much more efficient. I believe it was the basis for the Magna Carta.
@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.
Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?
God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.
Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?
Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.
But the citizen's income - it doesn't even sound like too bad an idea and I imagine could have alot of appeal... but did noone think about the expense of it and how it should be paid for ?
I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures
There are many citizen's income proposals out there and all are capable of being costed (and I imagine all have been). Citizen's income remains Green party policy. Whether (or what form) it appears in the 2015 GE manifesto will have nothing to do with Andrew Neil.
The joy about "Citizen's Income" is that you can simply get rid of an enormous number of other benefits (i.e. all of them, with the possible exception of disability) - so, no more housing benefit, no more job seekers, etc. etc. etc.
And you also get rid of all the adminstrative costs associated with those benefits. You could even roll child-benefit into it by having a small "citizen's income" per child.
I'd need a lot of convincing that it wouldn't mess with the work incentive or reinforce dependency culture, let alone that it might make us a magnet for global migration; however, I do find the idea of a floor you can't ever drop below an interesting idea. Particularly if it got rid of tax credits and all the other warped nonsense that happens in our existing social security system.
Mr. Song, because Newton didn't believe it, we had centuries of being told light wasn't a wave. That didn't make it right.
As I'm sure you know, the understanding of *most scientists*, physicists at least, is that light is wavelike or particle-like depending how you measure it.
I think I make it minimum 137 polls to go between now and 7th May from 10 main pollsters using normal publishing patterns and allowing for a final pre GE poll in the last week.
No doubt some of the companies currently publishing monthly will up the frequency closer we get to polling day as Opinium are doing.
@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj
Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.
It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.
And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.
Also London, it's Labour's strongest region and I've backed a few Labour longshots there... but the lack of realistic marginals there is not good for them.
Vanilla mail
Amazing how this is a Political Betting website but the actual bets are often kept secret.
I find it so bizarre that HSBC in Switzerland could have done what it is alleged they have done. Having been a private banker in Switzerland and worked for three clearly different sized banks until late 2013 and then working a s private consultant for clients dealing with a vast array of banks in Switzerland I just cannot recognise this lack of compliance with rules and legislation.
The hoops we had to jump through to open accounts were higher than for when i opened accounts with UK banks. the level of background info required on the client and the source of funds was extensive and if there was even a whiff of the client being dodgy or the source of funds not quite right then the account opening committees would just refuse the account.
as for allowing clients to do something that you knew were against the law in their own country, not only would the bank have asked them to leave to avoid trouble but as an individual banker you just didn't take the risk that next time you flew into another country you might be taken away by the authorities on a EAW or similar so you just didn't keep clients like that. But to then put it in an email that you know they were breaking the law in their own country is beyond stupid.
It is one thing to help clients use legal structures to plan and reduce their tax bills but completely another thing to knowingly help them break the law.
It appears that if the alleged behaviour is true it must have been down to a totally inept internal structure and team and unfortunately this sort of story massively damages people's perceptions of the industry and the offshore world and allows Miliband to make misguided statements about the offshore centres forgetting their massive contribution in jobs, revenue and, most importantly liquidity to the UK.
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
by the way that is the same Guardian of course who were very happy to use the benefits of offshore structures in order to save vast sums of money, but of course they are "good" tax avoiders whilst everyone else are "bad"....
Mr. Eagles, be fair. He's descended from criminals, not law-abiding stock.
Mr. Toms, indeed, the old wave-particle duality, which by definition includes a wave aspect which Newton (and scientists generally) disagreed with for a prolonged period of time.
@TheScreamingEagles Definitely a possibility, but blaming Ed B when the evidence only came to light in 2010? (you are excused from the competition anyway, as you specialize in rhetoric, not logic)
This won't wash. There were Swiss banks which were being pursued aggressively by the US authorities well before this date. You'd have to be wilfully blind not to have asked the question whether any of the Swiss entities owned by British banks were involved in the same racket. The British banks which set up in Switzerland didn't do it because they liked mountains, you know.
I find it hard to believe that no-one in HMRC or the Treasury or the FCA or the BoE didn't inquire about such matters. If Balls didn't know or didn't ask he was being negligent. He ought to have known and he ought to have made sure that the relevant regulatory authorities made inquiries.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Are you sceptical of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
'Tipped off'? It looks as if the whole thing is a carefully co-ordinated attack.
I'm intrigued as to how Labour will account for the help from those involved in their election spending.
More trouble in France (Marseille) - hooded gunmen (plural) fire on police.
I haven't got French news for a while but that sounds like pretty much a typical Monday morning in Marseille.
LOL - I know what you mean.
Even in sleepy Normandy we had some excitement when (I can't remember exactly what happened) someone either shot or shot at the mayor during a protest over something or other.
"Just showing yourself up as a one eyed liar now.. There were hundreds possibly over a thousand people there demonstrating as the photos and video in this article show"
Do you think that's a story? A group of people that you'd find at a Sunday village cricket match saying they don't agree with Charlie?
Get a grip!
Probably over a thousand people there at that Muslim rally condemning Charlie hebdo, more than attend any village cricket match ivd been to
Lies and spin might work in advertising but they make you look a real douche in debate
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.
[...]
I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.
"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"
That's a nonsense.
He even refutes it in his own piece !
He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."
Shush. I want that misconception getting the widest possible currency in the coming months.
If that does happen, it could well be the death of the Labour Party. A party that was comprehensively thumped in Scotland, well behind in votes in England (and possibly seats too) providing the Prime Minister and government of the country off the back of a stitch-up and unholy alliance of a left-wing Lib Dem rump and a separatist nationalist party?
Mr. Me, if you believe that AGW has been proven or generally supported by evidence to the same extent as the First Law of Thermodynamics then I disagree with you most heartily.
Not everything in the scientific mainstream has been supported to the same extent. And questioning the status quo is the only way progress can be made (by confirming the standard as correct or proving it to be false).
Physics seems to be the best example of using the best theory for now and then discarding it when it's proved false. That's one problem with string theory and multiverses. String theory seems to be gradually waning but the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because we can't show it isn't there. Thus it's a faith thing.
Attributed to Thomas Huxley "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." If facts are out of reach, it's no longer science.
Mr Dancer and Toms, light is a sneaky little tinker. No one's come up with a better theory for quantum wave theory than the Copenhagen interpretation and that's not any sort of explanation anyway.
I think I make it minimum 137 polls to go between now and 7th May from 10 main pollsters using normal publishing patterns and allowing for a final pre GE poll in the last week.
No doubt some of the companies currently publishing monthly will up the frequency closer we get to polling day as Opinium are doing.
Most polled UK GE ever.
ICM were polling twice, rather than once, a month in the run up to the last election. I expect they'll poll far more frequently during the campaign proper. I'd expect Ipsos Mori to poll far more frequently as well.
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
'Tipped off'? It looks as if the whole thing is a carefully co-ordinated attack.
I'm intrigued as to how Labour will account for the help from those involved in their election spending.
How much does the Radio Times cost these days? It's tied to the Panorama programme tonight.
And these are a kind of personal service for yourself to maintain good betting practice?
Ever watch curb your enthusiasm?
One of the most popular comedies if the last decade, surprising you've not heard of it
I don't watch huge amounts of TV.
If I get control of the remote control, I watch the news or Star Trek if it's on one of the satellite channels, or I head for the film or sport channels and see what's on there. More often, the other half has the remote control and it's cooking channels or property programmes. The only recent comedies that I've seen significant numbers of episodes of are The Big Bang Theory and Not Going Out.
I did eventually see the first series of Broadchurch, which I thought was exceptionally good, but I haven't caught up with this series yet.
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
'Tipped off'? It looks as if the whole thing is a carefully co-ordinated attack.
I'm intrigued as to how Labour will account for the help from those involved in their election spending.
How much does the Radio Times cost these days? It's tied to the Panorama programme tonight.
BBC impartiality? The licence fee should be halved (I hope).
Given ClimateGate - I'm more likely to believe in vampires, than AGW.
I was warm *no pun* about it in about 2002 and then a couple of years later I became very sceptical and remained more so as time went by. It's science as religion - a massive No-No.
Physics seems to be the best example of using the best theory for now and then discarding it when it's proved false. That's one problem with string theory and multiverses. String theory seems to be gradually waning but the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because we can't show it isn't there. Thus it's a faith thing.
Attributed to Thomas Huxley "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." If facts are out of reach, it's no longer science.
Mr Dancer and Toms, light is a sneaky little tinker. No one's come up with a better theory for quantum wave theory than the Copenhagen interpretation and that's not any sort of explanation anyway.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Are you sceptical of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Mr Me,
one day if you care to drop by my place as we did discuss a year or so ago, I can show you original copies of the work done by John Tyndall - my Great Great Uncle - when he showed for the first time that CO2 is a green house gas. I can also show you the write ups of the experiments showing that this work was done in a vacuum flask and was designed only to show effects under laboratory conditions. It bears no relation to the effects in the world at large where [positive and negative feedback mechanisms - forcings - are far more important than any initial CO2 effect.
Mr. Me, if you believe that AGW has been proven or generally supported by evidence to the same extent as the First Law of Thermodynamics then I disagree with you most heartily.
Not everything in the scientific mainstream has been supported to the same extent. And questioning the status quo is the only way progress can be made (by confirming the standard as correct or proving it to be false).
The problem with AGW is the socialist political radicalism that the Left (incl. charities, scientists, activists, new media and political parties) graft onto it. Because human induced global-warming is axiomatic, ergo socialism must be the solution as well.
When they put it like that it's hardly surprising that people who fundamentally disagree with that use every means at their disposal to disprove the science behind AGW.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Micro-evolution, no evidence for macro-evolution. Indeed Darwin said we would find millions of transitional fossils, we haven't found any, hence the nonsensical punctuated equilibrium theory.
Fact is there is no evidence macro-evolution is true and it makes little sense, it's a leap of faith I can't make. It says something that South Park guys managed to debunk it so hilariously in two half hour shows.
Mr. Anorak, I'd dispute your creationism vs evolution comparison as well. Evolution is tremendously well-documented (we see it even today with things like MRSA or this astounding case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31145601).
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
The "political aspect" is neither here nor there to the scientific credibility or otherwise of the data and hypothesis.
You are promoting a logical fallacy. Arrows were responsible for the majority of deaths in warfare 600 years ago, therefore it is impossible that guns could be responsible for more deaths in warfare today. People have been dying in warfare for centuries before the invention of the gun...
One needs to look at the actual evidence - such as observations of radiation coming from the sun, etc, in order to attribute the cause of recent warming to either natural changes or human influence. That work has been done. By scientists.
What about the photoelectric effect? Are you sceptical of the conclusions of those experiments?
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”
Look on the bright side.
At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.
Yet.
You need to copy the entire link (including the "http" bit at the front), otherwise it thinks it is a local link to PB and doesn't work.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
'Tipped off'? It looks as if the whole thing is a carefully co-ordinated attack.
I'm intrigued as to how Labour will account for the help from those involved in their election spending.
How much does the Radio Times cost these days? It's tied to the Panorama programme tonight.
And The Guardian? Funny how they're running similar stories. (It's happened before, of course)
Mr. Me, arrows aren't generally used in warfare today, though. The climate's natural heating and cooling continues, unless you think the onset of man's industrial activities led to the Earth spontaneously deciding to have a steady state climate which would henceforth only be affected by the gaseous emissions of mankind.
Mr. Me, if you believe that AGW has been proven or generally supported by evidence to the same extent as the First Law of Thermodynamics then I disagree with you most heartily.
Not everything in the scientific mainstream has been supported to the same extent. And questioning the status quo is the only way progress can be made (by confirming the standard as correct or proving it to be false).
The problem with AGW is the socialist political radicalism that the Left (incl. charities, scientists, activists, new media and political parties) graft onto it. Because human induced global-warming is axiomatic, ergo socialism must be the solution as well.
When they put it like that it's hardly surprising that people who fundamentally disagree with that use every means at their disposal to disprove the science behind AGW.
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
No they don't. That is simply a lie. The 95% figure was obtained by assuming that every paper on climate or Palaeo-climate studies that does not actively challenge the current AGW hypothesis is endorsing the position. It is like claiming that every physics paper published that does not actively challenge string theory is endorsing it.
Mr. Anorak, it's faith to believe something blindly. Science is about scepticism, and calling those who disagree with you 'deniers' is using the language of smear to try and damage your opponents rather than contesting with them on the field of facts, theories and evidence. It's an ugly term that's associated with Holocaust denial, and your use of it diminishes you.
Ok, I'll withdraw the term 'denier'.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
Unfortunately your description of 'discarding of data' could be a perfect summary of the current state of climate science. It certainly doesn't deserve the honour of being called science at the moment.
Yawn, another smear from an armchair expert, this time smearing the reputation of thousands of highly qualified and underpaid researchers.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
On this specific point.
Suppose Mr Dancer that you come to accept the conclusions of climate scientists, that the climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the likely impacts that would result from continued emissions would be so damaging that they would be best avoided.
Would that mean you would have to accept the political policies advocated by Greenpeace, watermelons, et al? No it would not.
Just as righties advocate policies that are different to lefties when discussing how to provide healthcare to the population, rather than dismissing the concept of healthcare at all, so righties would be able to advocate different policies for avoiding climate change.
Physics seems to be the best example of using the best theory for now and then discarding it when it's proved false. That's one problem with string theory and multiverses. String theory seems to be gradually waning but the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because we can't show it isn't there. Thus it's a faith thing.
Attributed to Thomas Huxley "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." If facts are out of reach, it's no longer science.
Mr Dancer and Toms, light is a sneaky little tinker. No one's come up with a better theory for quantum wave theory than the Copenhagen interpretation and that's not any sort of explanation anyway.
No. It's more like Chinese boxes, whereby a new theory should encompass the successful elements of the old one(s). The Copenhagen view is unsettling perhaps as we live, somewhat, in a macroscopic world, but to accuse it of being no theory at all somewhat belies that fact that it best explains the outcomes of experiments within its known limits, in number beyond count---one of the ultimate arbiters. A more general theory will encompass this.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Undoubtedly. That's why pronouncements of axe-grinding, armchair scientists should be viewed with a great deal more scepticism than published, peer-reviewed science. The latter overwhelmingly supports AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
Climategate.
"in the long run" - learn to read
When would that be? Costly decisions based on falsified research are being made now.
Comments
On the tax avoidance issue , you have a point.
The problem is that the evidence points to collusion in tax evasion.
I think you are very confused about the nature of the computer code that you are discussing. Firstly, there is no University of Norwich involved in climate change research to my knowledge. Secondly, the University of East Anglia, based in Norwich, does not have a "climate change model", in the sense of a computer model that is used to predict the climate. I think the code you are referring to is code that was used to analyse historical temperature observations.
There is no sense in which the science done at UEA was "secret" or "unverifiable". Details of the methods will have been published in scientific journals.
The main point is that science proceeds by independent repeatability, and not by audit. Political opponents of climate science are trying to create an onerous climate of audit so that they can rubbish the results of the science by pointing to inconsequential minor errors. That is not scientific.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
I will resist the desire to name at least one of those who self-righteously jumped to condemn my feelings. Let's just say they're in the Metropoliti demographic. That their hypocritical post annoyed me is obvious. It wasn't @Roger.
"The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.
Such TV sets 'listen' to every conversation held in front of them...
...voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31296188
Charges against the bank are being brought by several countries I believe, but I must have misread....possibly.
@patrickwintour: David Cameron held 1 hour Cobra meeting this morning to discuss risk of Greek exit from Euro including threat of contagion.
-Balls 'itching' to debate Osborne
-Balls sacks...
-Balls bags...
That's quite something - don't have a conversation in the presence of a domestic appliance.
I wonder who these third parties might be, that process the information?
I hope one day that the Climategate leaker gets the plaudits of Woodward AND Bernstein.
He's more worried about Nigel Farage telling everybody 'I told you so'
Such bread bags are superb if you have leaky boots/wellies and can't afford cobbling/not worth it.
*Brought to you by Plato's Handy Hints - I also darn socks*
In practice, everything leaks, so ultimately anyone who wants to listen to it. The same will be true of all the other devices in your house, which will also capture and transmit data.
PS. Someone was saying that the way you used to recognize tech-savvy geeks was by the amount of digital gadgets they have, but now / in future you recognize them by how much pre-digital analog/mechanical stuff they have...
"Doctors working fewer hours for more money, bent coppers, or tax inspectors agreeing advantageous deals with telecommunications companies?"
Having just come out of the dentist you might have a point. I was reminded of the Private Eye cover "It looks like we'll have to take out your whole wallet"
The Samsung talk reminds me of the Kinect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvSsba7Wmc
They had Daniel Riccardio on, and an audience member asked him an awesome question.
The fourth rule of comedy is not to take the p out of people's names, because however creative a comic genius you are, they will have heard it before (possibly in a speech from Michael Heseltine).
Maybe this is a MORE accurate metric than simple viewing figures? Jack Bauer is my Go To Guy for laughs when Los Angeles is under nuclear bomb attack AGAIN...
Such prosecutions are - if successful - very good at sending a clear message - and I agree with Antifrank on that - but HMRC's mission is to raise money, as much as possible and as easily as possible. So if they can get a lot of people coughing up they will see that as a better outcome than embarking on lengthy and uncertain prosecutions.
My latest thoughts on Scotland:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/timber-great-snp-price-crash.html
And my thoughts on how the composition of the Lib Dems after the election might affect negotiations over the identity of the next government:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/blessed-are-kingmakers-who-will-lib.html
Typical Aussie.
It has always been difficult to prosecute the rich and powerful.
Prosecuting the poor is so much more efficient.
I believe it was the basis for the Magna Carta.
I think I make it minimum 137 polls to go between now and 7th May from 10 main pollsters using normal publishing patterns and allowing for a final pre GE poll in the last week.
No doubt some of the companies currently publishing monthly will up the frequency closer we get to polling day as Opinium are doing.
Most polled UK GE ever.
I find it so bizarre that HSBC in Switzerland could have done what it is alleged they have done. Having been a private banker in Switzerland and worked for three clearly different sized banks until late 2013 and then working a s private consultant for clients dealing with a vast array of banks in Switzerland I just cannot recognise this lack of compliance with rules and legislation.
The hoops we had to jump through to open accounts were higher than for when i opened accounts with UK banks. the level of background info required on the client and the source of funds was extensive and if there was even a whiff of the client being dodgy or the source of funds not quite right then the account opening committees would just refuse the account.
as for allowing clients to do something that you knew were against the law in their own country, not only would the bank have asked them to leave to avoid trouble but as an individual banker you just didn't take the risk that next time you flew into another country you might be taken away by the authorities on a EAW or similar so you just didn't keep clients like that. But to then put it in an email that you know they were breaking the law in their own country is beyond stupid.
It is one thing to help clients use legal structures to plan and reduce their tax bills but completely another thing to knowingly help them break the law.
It appears that if the alleged behaviour is true it must have been down to a totally inept internal structure and team and unfortunately this sort of story massively damages people's perceptions of the industry and the offshore world and allows Miliband to make misguided statements about the offshore centres forgetting their massive contribution in jobs, revenue and, most importantly liquidity to the UK.
Funny how Miliband started shouting about offshore evils a couple of days before the Guardian launched this expose - would it be too cynical to think that he was tipped off on the timing.....
by the way that is the same Guardian of course who were very happy to use the benefits of offshore structures in order to save vast sums of money, but of course they are "good" tax avoiders whilst everyone else are "bad"....
Ever watch curb your enthusiasm?
Mr. Toms, indeed, the old wave-particle duality, which by definition includes a wave aspect which Newton (and scientists generally) disagreed with for a prolonged period of time.
I find it hard to believe that no-one in HMRC or the Treasury or the FCA or the BoE didn't inquire about such matters. If Balls didn't know or didn't ask he was being negligent. He ought to have known and he ought to have made sure that the relevant regulatory authorities made inquiries.
Science is indeed about scepticism, with repeatability of findings by peers a cornerstone of acceptance of any theory or discovery. Most self-titled 'sceptics' are not peers to published climate scientists. In my view a very large slice of them are sceptical as a consequence of their politics, and the herd-view they are exposed to when they interact with fellow travellers. [I use 'herd' here as a general term, not the PB-specific usage!].
Some are better informed - yourself and Richard Tyndall amogst them - but the consistent discarding of data which supports AGW, and the selection/promulgation of the minority of data which contradicts AGW is the antithesis of scientific scepticism. It's more akin to a creationist picking the one-in-a-thousand animal whose evolution remains tricky to explain.
I'm intrigued as to how Labour will account for the help from those involved in their election spending.
Even in sleepy Normandy we had some excitement when (I can't remember exactly what happened) someone either shot or shot at the mayor during a protest over something or other.
Lies and spin might work in advertising but they make you look a real douche in debate
By contrast, the Earth's climate has always and will always change. Teasing out the difference between the natural and continual change in climate due to normal factors and any additional changes due to human industrial activity is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.
There's also a political aspect (socialism, greens etc) to those in favour of the theory.
Type "Labour Car Crash Election 2010" into YouTube to find a car crashing into a bus shelter during a Labour press conference.
The British public will not take it to kindly.
Not everything in the scientific mainstream has been supported to the same extent. And questioning the status quo is the only way progress can be made (by confirming the standard as correct or proving it to be false).
Physics seems to be the best example of using the best theory for now and then discarding it when it's proved false. That's one problem with string theory and multiverses. String theory seems to be gradually waning but the multiverse theory is unfalsifiable, because we can't show it isn't there. Thus it's a faith thing.
Attributed to Thomas Huxley "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." If facts are out of reach, it's no longer science.
Mr Dancer and Toms, light is a sneaky little tinker. No one's come up with a better theory for quantum wave theory than the Copenhagen interpretation and that's not any sort of explanation anyway.
If I get control of the remote control, I watch the news or Star Trek if it's on one of the satellite channels, or I head for the film or sport channels and see what's on there. More often, the other half has the remote control and it's cooking channels or property programmes. The only recent comedies that I've seen significant numbers of episodes of are The Big Bang Theory and Not Going Out.
I did eventually see the first series of Broadchurch, which I thought was exceptionally good, but I haven't caught up with this series yet.
I doubt whether many English labour MPs would take to it kindly. Especially those in marginal seats.
You could see mass abstentions on certain matters and serious government defeats.
I was warm *no pun* about it in about 2002 and then a couple of years later I became very sceptical and remained more so as time went by. It's science as religion - a massive No-No.
one day if you care to drop by my place as we did discuss a year or so ago, I can show you original copies of the work done by John Tyndall - my Great Great Uncle - when he showed for the first time that CO2 is a green house gas. I can also show you the write ups of the experiments showing that this work was done in a vacuum flask and was designed only to show effects under laboratory conditions. It bears no relation to the effects in the world at large where [positive and negative feedback mechanisms - forcings - are far more important than any initial CO2 effect.
When they put it like that it's hardly surprising that people who fundamentally disagree with that use every means at their disposal to disprove the science behind AGW.
I don't have faith in AGW being true, but I have faith that - in the long run - the scientific method will provide the right answers.
Fact is there is no evidence macro-evolution is true and it makes little sense, it's a leap of faith I can't make. It says something that South Park guys managed to debunk it so hilariously in two half hour shows.
You are promoting a logical fallacy. Arrows were responsible for the majority of deaths in warfare 600 years ago, therefore it is impossible that guns could be responsible for more deaths in warfare today. People have been dying in warfare for centuries before the invention of the gun...
One needs to look at the actual evidence - such as observations of radiation coming from the sun, etc, in order to attribute the cause of recent warming to either natural changes or human influence. That work has been done. By scientists.
What about the photoelectric effect? Are you sceptical of the conclusions of those experiments?
Vent your spleens noble spinners.
Mr. Royale, quite.
You need to copy the entire link (including the "http" bit at the front), otherwise it thinks it is a local link to PB and doesn't work.
That AGW was instantly *political* not rational shows it in spades.
When Thatcher and Reagan defeated communism, the people who follow it had to come up with a new way of Telling Everybody What to Do.
AGW is just the vehicle for that. Whether man made climate change exists or not is completely irrelevant.
Suppose Mr Dancer that you come to accept the conclusions of climate scientists, that the climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the likely impacts that would result from continued emissions would be so damaging that they would be best avoided.
Would that mean you would have to accept the political policies advocated by Greenpeace, watermelons, et al? No it would not.
Just as righties advocate policies that are different to lefties when discussing how to provide healthcare to the population, rather than dismissing the concept of healthcare at all, so righties would be able to advocate different policies for avoiding climate change.
The Copenhagen view is unsettling perhaps as we live, somewhat, in a macroscopic world, but to accuse it of being no theory at all somewhat belies that fact that it best explains the outcomes of experiments within its known limits, in number beyond count---one of the ultimate arbiters. A more general theory will encompass this.