The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
I agree with you entirely. I actually came to skepticism from an initial acceptance of the hypothesis and a trust in the advocates (which in itself should have been a warning to me). At that point I concentrated on my own areas of expertise - palaeo-environment modelling within the late glacial and post glacial period - and accepted what was being said by those in other related fields.
Then the AGW advocates started claiming that those areas where I really did know something, particularly the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods, either did not exist or were not as warm as we had always contended. Even then I was willing to look at their evidence and adjust my views if the science showed they were right. Unfortunately not only did it not show they were right, but it didn't actually have any basis in scientific analysis at all. They had simply found the warmer periods inconvenient to their hypothesis and so had adjusted the data in a manner unsupported by any evidence or statistical reasoning to make them cooler.
Although those 'adjustments' were backtracked on relatively quickly because so many people attacked them, it gave me cause to doubt a lot of the other claims being made. Hence the reason I have moved to a position of skepticism. Once you stop simply accepting what a the climate modellers say 'because they are scientists' you quite quickly start to see the flaws in their thinking and the lack of strong scientific methodology in their work.
Pretty much my path to skepticism too. That, and when you have 'scientists' claiming that their models prove AGW when their models don't even fit new data.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Say I have a house with and east wing, a central hall and a west wing (OK, I lied it's a mansion) all of equal size. The temperature in the east wing is 18 degrees, 19 degrees in the central hall and 20 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 19 degrees.
Say I meddle with the thermostats such that it is now 16 degrees in the east wing, 21 degrees in the central hall and 23 degrees in the west wing.
The average temperature of the house is 20 degrees.
A scientist says "The house has got warmer". Are you telling me this statement is incorrect because one part of the house is colder?
Your analogy is bogus. A house is not the planet. And ground based thermometers are not as accurate and less well spaced than your thermostats. To be realistic with UN methodology you would have to ignore your 16 deg reading and adjust the 21 deg one upwards.
Satellite records of the atmosphere show no warming for 18 years.
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
You think he was an effective minister? And do you think he's the person to take the message to the country?
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
No, its testament to Miliband's remoteness that he thinks the disaffected Labour vote will be swayed by 'Climate change'.....
Remind me, how high is it on YouGov's list of issues for either the country or families?
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
Prescott is an idiot with no credibility whatsoever, the only snobbery I ever see is the inverted snobbery that you and other Socialists preach.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
I agree with you entirely. I actually came to skepticism from an initial acceptance of the hypothesis and a trust in the advocates (which in itself should have been a warning to me). At that point I concentrated on my own areas of expertise - palaeo-environment modelling within the late glacial and post glacial period - and accepted what was being said by those in other related fields.
Then the AGW advocates started claiming that those areas where I really did know something, particularly the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods, either did not exist or were not as warm as we had always contended. Even then I was willing to look at their evidence and adjust my views if the science showed they were right. Unfortunately not only did it not show they were right, but it didn't actually have any basis in scientific analysis at all. They had simply found the warmer periods inconvenient to their hypothesis and so had adjusted the data in a manner unsupported by any evidence or statistical reasoning to make them cooler.
Although those 'adjustments' were backtracked on relatively quickly because so many people attacked them, it gave me cause to doubt a lot of the other claims being made. Hence the reason I have moved to a position of skepticism. Once you stop simply accepting what a the climate modellers say 'because they are scientists' you quite quickly start to see the flaws in their thinking and the lack of strong scientific methodology in their work.
Pretty much my path to skepticism too. That, and when you have 'scientists' claiming that their models prove AGW when their models don't even fit new data.
That and the denouncement of sceptics as 'deniers' - the language of faith, not science.
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
Did he ever do "stuff on the low paid jobs"? He was just a thick as mince figurehead promoted to appeal to the meathead vote.
Mirror Politics @MirrorPolitics 47s47 seconds ago Chancellor George Osborne had 56 meetings with scandal-hit HSBC bank bosses
And if the Chancellor of the Exchequer hadn't met with HSBC once a month - presumably the outrage bus would be driving in the direction of Evil Bankers Given Free Rein to Do What They Want As Ozzy Snoozes??
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
Did he ever do "stuff on the low paid jobs"? He was just a thick as mince figurehead promoted to appeal to the meathead vote.
I'm sure this statement will enhance his appeal to the Greens:
"The green belt is a Labour achievement; and we intend to build upon it"
Any chance of anyone with a Times subscription giving us a summary of the Times story on Ed Balls? (*makes eyes at Screaming Eagles*)
Ed is crap.
Ed Balls is crap, that is, for the following reasons
1) The two biggest faux pas this year have been caused be Ed Balls (Bill Somebody, and his receipts gaffes) - Which given the importance of the economy in the upcoming election isn't exactly good
2) Ed Balls has pissed off most of the Shadow cabinet by making them give him a veto/advance sight of their proposals so he can cost them and say well we can't afford this, the fact Labour have still got a blank piece of paper in so many areas is down to Ed Balls, which is becoming an issue with the election being less than 3 months to go, Labour have got nothing to sell on the doorstep and leads to policy messes like their tuition fees move this weekend.
3) He's got the economy wrong - He overegged it on the double dip and he's not acknowledged that the economy has got better (and seems unwilling to concede that Labour made mistakes between 1997 and 2010) which has damaged Labour's credibility
4) He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband and thinks Ed Miliband will lose, so Ed Balls is doing things that will ensure Yvette will take over from Ed Miliband were Labour to lose in May.
Here's a couple of quotes from the articles
“If Balls carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable. He really doesn’t think that anyone else is entitled to have an opinion on money or anything else. He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”
and
"There is a belief among Miliband’s allies that much of what Balls does is calculated to be of maximum benefit not to the Labour party but to his wife, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary. She is among the favourites to succeed Miliband if he fails to win in May."
I understand why Miliband has brought back Prescott - he's hardly got 'North London intellectual' written all over him after all.....
......But Climate change?
......Really?
I know Prescott was the EU negotiator at Kyoto nearly 20 years ago - but is he really best equipped to explain 'Why consumers have got higher energy bills because of policies of former energy minister Ed Miliband?'
Surely something a bit more practical like 'low paid jobs/zero hours contracts' would play to his strengths more?
Or is Lord Prescott too grand for that these days?
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
Did he ever do "stuff on the low paid jobs"? He was just a thick as mince figurehead promoted to appeal to the meathead vote.
That Prescott was the idiot that signed up to Kyoto (yet another piece of national self flagellation by Labour) does not recommend him for anything especially when the Clown Prince of Climate Change larceny now leads the Labour Party. Frankly that's he's been bought back for that reason is risible. I suspect as its the only notable thing Prescott did that didn't turn to excrement its being used as cover for the fact that Prescott is being brought back because he is about the only remaining plausible English working class big beast left.
What a statement about the Labour Party. They have to resort to John Prescott (who could not get elected PCC for Hull a while back) for working class plausibility because the modern party is full of urban liberal toffs and Scots facing humiliating defeat.
The thing is given his record with the fairer sex (McDaid, MacDougall, Temple etc) he won't be much good in Rotherham or Greater Manchester or a host of other places. A crusty old perv like him is the last thing Labour need in those areas!
PS And 'Two Jags, Two Shags, Three Shacks and a Croquet Mallet' is hardly the best choice to talk about the cost of living crisis either!
The point about Prescott is that he's a little bit polarizing. He starts out as a familiar face for the Labour base, and Labour will hope to see him discussed in the media the way right-leaning people are discussing him here, which will rile up people otherwise tempted by Green or UKIP to back Labour in reaction.
There are quite a few polarizing moves like this that Labour can make between now and the election, and they'll be more effective as the campaign heats up and the media are on the look-out for the kind of traditional right-left pagga that they understand how to report.
Like all those so called scientists, who with jobs to keep and advancement to consider, repeat the mantra of global warming; so our so called expert pollsters who are flailing around in the new political situation, change their methodology and hope that they are on the right path.
I can now tell all PBers that the Siberian air stream that has hit North America, is the first harbinger of a new Ice Age.
Is that a surprise ? As the earth gets warmer, more energy is being stored. From time to time, this will unleash itself in the form of cyclones, hurricanes etc. The severity and frequency of these have increased in recent years. All you need is one of these "storms" to come in from Siberia and you have what you have.
You are only referring to the Arctic winds to suit your political agenda. What about the hurricans, typhoons, cyclones playing havoc in far greater numbers than before ?
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
The point about Prescott is that he's a little bit polarizing. He starts out as a familiar face for the Labour base, and Labour will hope to see him discussed in the media the way right-leaning people are discussing him here, which will rile up people otherwise tempted by Green or UKIP to back Labour in reaction.
There are quite a few polarizing moves like this that Labour can make between now and the election, and they'll be more effective as the campaign heats up and the media are on the look-out for the kind of traditional right-left pagga that they understand how to report.
Waverers will react and go back to Labour specifically because Prescott is a moron? It's a great plan.
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
I think you are going off a bit half cocked there. Possibly read what he wrote again.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
@NickPalmer Are Labour serious about winning this election - appointing Prescott as "Climate Change adviser" ?!
Could you not find an actual y'know scientist...
It's pretty bizarre. I can only think Labour want to lose. They could give up on Scotland and concentrate on English seats and get a Government with SNP support. Instead they seem to be giving up. Pretty weird.;
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
I think you are going off a bit half cocked there. Possibly read what he wrote again.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
No his statement was " I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics"
That is a very succinct statement. Either he has disproved "several well-attested laws of physics" or he hasn't. All he has to do is link his published papers which disprove "several well-attested laws of physics". Surely it should be easy for him to do.
Except they are not. Hurricane numbers are well below normal for the last couple of years. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your little fairy tales.
The overwhelming issue for me has been the way climate science has been presented, rather like my A level physics. We were taught how to calculate error based on the precision of the instruments, the variation of the samples, etc. Very little of which accounted for the chance of messing up the experiment. Accordingly, I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
All the climate data in the world is not enough to draw the strength of conclusion the IPCC has in the past. The system of climate is more complex than the original error bars accounted for, hence why they start invoking it to explain new data. But that rather assumes the new position is correct, and so on.
I'm not surprised this has led to widespread skepticism about the consequences of climate change, although it shouldn't cast much doubt on climate change per se.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
I think you are going off a bit half cocked there. Possibly read what he wrote again.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
No his statement was " I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics"
That is a very succinct statement. Either he has disproved "several well-attested laws of physics" or he hasn't. All he has to do is link his published papers which disprove "several well-attested laws of physics". Surely it should be easy for him to do.
You are reading his comment completely backwards. I can understand how you are doing it ... but he does not say what you think he says. Read Richard's comment again carefully.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
I think you are going off a bit half cocked there. Possibly read what he wrote again.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
No his statement was " I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics"
That is a very succinct statement. Either he has disproved "several well-attested laws of physics" or he hasn't. All he has to do is link his published papers which disprove "several well-attested laws of physics". Surely it should be easy for him to do.
You are reading his comment completely backwards. I can understand how you are doing it ... but he does not say what you think he says. Read Richard's comment again carefully.
As usual he is just cherry picking the bit of the sentence he likes to score cheap points
I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
So he drew the wrong conclusions from his results, because his a-level education was inadequate, and as a result felt he had disproved a fundamental law, when in fact he had misunderstood a fundamental law.
Oh lol. You "disproved several well-attested laws of physics" name ONE you disproved. And link your published and now accepted paper that confirms this.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
I think you are going off a bit half cocked there. Possibly read what he wrote again.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
No his statement was " I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics"
That is a very succinct statement. Either he has disproved "several well-attested laws of physics" or he hasn't. All he has to do is link his published papers which disprove "several well-attested laws of physics". Surely it should be easy for him to do.
You are reading his comment completely backwards. I can understand how you are doing it ... but he does not say what you think he says. Read Richard's comment again carefully.
As usual he is just cherry picking the bit of the sentence he likes to score cheap points
I entirely disproved several well-attested laws of physics, because I was taught fundamentally not look deep enough to understand what the nature of the problem I was assessing was before drawing my conclusions.
So he drew the wrong conclusions from his results, because his a-level education was inadequate, and as a result felt he had disproved a fundamental law, when in fact he had misunderstood a fundamental law.
So could you make the variable perhaps x% of "No" and y% of "Yes" ?
Thanks, Pulpstar.
It might be a bit tricky, but I could have a go. There are a couple of other refinements I want to work on, including being able to input an opinion poll result or a forecast and tweaking your "base" swings to try to match it up
Comments
Not sure if this would be tricky to implement but the swing in Scotland to SNP correlates to "Yes" broadly at 84% of Yes voters http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Daily-Record-Final-Tables.pdf page 7, subsample for the example. This 84% figure or close to it is found in other polls too.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/a7awj68e8x/Final_Times_Results_150202_Website.pdf
"No" seems to be 10-16% of the SNP vote.
So could you make the variable perhaps x% of "No" and y% of "Yes" ?
Satellite records of the atmosphere show no warming for 18 years.
Chancellor George Osborne had 56 meetings with scandal-hit HSBC bank bosses
Also, I see Mourinho is showing himself once again in attitude to be every bit the cock he was in his first stint at Chelsea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31569726
Good night all.
Prescott's good on climate change and always has been: it's Tory snobbery to suppose he only does stuff on the low paid jobs etc., 'cos he was once a steward.
Elsewhere who remembers st hodges saying ed would cone up with a crazy gimmick to get the voters being lost to the greens?
Not even he could have predicted two jags, failed wannabe mayor lord prezza as climate guru was that gimmick!
http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/forget-chelseas-matic-worcester-citys-shab-khan-wwe-body-slam-opponent-videos/
Crickey...somebody needs some anger management classes.
Could you not find an actual y'know scientist...
Remind me, how high is it on YouGov's list of issues for either the country or families?
Was it another 5 million jobs in addition to the 5 million jobs the coalition's policies will cost?
Did they hack his phone?
And why hasn't it shut down yet?
He was just a thick as mince figurehead promoted to appeal to the meathead vote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
https://www.facebook.com/Carlitoofficialmusic/photos/a.211653618863754.60876.199047983457651/991767114185730/?type=1&theater
"The green belt is a Labour achievement; and we intend to build upon it"
Ed Balls is crap, that is, for the following reasons
1) The two biggest faux pas this year have been caused be Ed Balls (Bill Somebody, and his receipts gaffes) - Which given the importance of the economy in the upcoming election isn't exactly good
2) Ed Balls has pissed off most of the Shadow cabinet by making them give him a veto/advance sight of their proposals so he can cost them and say well we can't afford this, the fact Labour have still got a blank piece of paper in so many areas is down to Ed Balls, which is becoming an issue with the election being less than 3 months to go, Labour have got nothing to sell on the doorstep and leads to policy messes like their tuition fees move this weekend.
3) He's got the economy wrong - He overegged it on the double dip and he's not acknowledged that the economy has got better (and seems unwilling to concede that Labour made mistakes between 1997 and 2010) which has damaged Labour's credibility
4) He doesn't like or rate Ed Miliband and thinks Ed Miliband will lose, so Ed Balls is doing things that will ensure Yvette will take over from Ed Miliband were Labour to lose in May.
Here's a couple of quotes from the articles
“If Balls carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable. He really doesn’t think that anyone else is entitled to have an opinion on money or anything else. He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”
and
"There is a belief among Miliband’s allies that much of what Balls does is calculated to be of maximum benefit not to the Labour party but to his wife, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary. She is among the favourites to succeed Miliband if he fails to win in May."
(The morning thread will be about this)
What a statement about the Labour Party. They have to resort to John Prescott (who could not get elected PCC for Hull a while back) for working class plausibility because the modern party is full of urban liberal toffs and Scots facing humiliating defeat.
The thing is given his record with the fairer sex (McDaid, MacDougall, Temple etc) he won't be much good in Rotherham or Greater Manchester or a host of other places. A crusty old perv like him is the last thing Labour need in those areas!
PS And 'Two Jags, Two Shags, Three Shacks and a Croquet Mallet' is hardly the best choice to talk about the cost of living crisis either!
A pretty solid 232 off 49.4 isn't a bad effort at all from the new guys.
There are quite a few polarizing moves like this that Labour can make between now and the election, and they'll be more effective as the campaign heats up and the media are on the look-out for the kind of traditional right-left pagga that they understand how to report.
Like most Climate Change deniers you would rather stuck to nonsense that climate isn't changing and not even try to argue it's not anthropomorphic (which is probably is).
It's a great plan.
He means that his results appeared to disprove well-attested laws because of his lack of complete understanding and hence inability to set up the experiment to control for certain factors and take appropriate measurements... rather like a lot of climate science in fact.
That is a very succinct statement. Either he has disproved "several well-attested laws of physics" or he hasn't. All he has to do is link his published papers which disprove "several well-attested laws of physics". Surely it should be easy for him to do.
I can understand how you are doing it ... but he does not say what you think he says.
Read Richard's comment again carefully.
Indeed. Exactly. Just so.
It might be a bit tricky, but I could have a go. There are a couple of other refinements I want to work on, including being able to input an opinion poll result or a forecast and tweaking your "base" swings to try to match it up
more later...