My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
There's a lot that's good on Watts Up, and a lot that is ill-informed pseudoscientific gibberish. Being popular is no guarantee of accuracy.
It's better informed than PB on this subject - and no doubt that site could say exactly the same about PB
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
I agree about the electoral college.
I inferred your view was that Clinton would get a boost vs Trump once Sanders was out. My point was simply that Trump hasn't yet got the full boost from knocking out Cruz and Kasich. He has more to gain by doing so though he may not be completely able as you say.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
There are also many trans-Tasman agreements between New Zealand and Australia, both of which have a head of state based in the UK, as does Canada.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
It would be ironic if Clinton has more of a problem uniting her party behind her than Trump though. The bitterness being created by the Democratic race shouldn't be underestimated.
Power has always been shared in that the most absolutist tyrant has always had to rely on consent from a small cabal of facilitators and the conduct of countries adjacent.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
But where does he say that they weren't sacrificing sovereignty? I have read it several times and I can see no reference to that.
This referendum shows that we remain sovereign. For that reason I would strongly dispute the use of the word "sacrifice". But I guess that's because I am a Remainer.
Why do Remainers keep saying that we are sovereign because we are having this referendum as if this whole thing were some abstract charade just to exercise our national muscles to prove a point?
We all know the UK remains ultimately sovereign. That's not the point.
The point is whether our membership of the EU - with all the powers we have granted to it through treaties - is still fit for purpose and commands our democratic consent.
If not, we have an option to choose a more independent path and a different future.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
I'm sure the Flat Earth Society was very popular in its day.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
But where does he say that they weren't sacrificing sovereignty? I have read it several times and I can see no reference to that.
This referendum shows that we remain sovereign. For that reason I would strongly dispute the use of the word "sacrifice". But I guess that's because I am a Remainer.
Why do Remainers keep saying that we are sovereign because we are having this referendum as if this whole thing were some abstract charade just to exercise our national muscles to prove a point?
We all know the UK remains ultimately sovereign. That's not the point.
The point is whether our membership of the EU - with all the powers we have granted to it through treaties - is still fit for purpose and commands our democratic consent.
If not, we have an option to choose a more independent path and a different future.
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
@bbclaurak: Hezza unleashes both barrels at Boris, says he no longer looks fit to be Tory leader, 'strain of campaign showing' + 'losing his judgement'
@MrHarryCole: BJ team says he "simply miss spoke - should have said of 2 or 3 not more than". Point is there is an EU law about presentation of bananas
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
The NAFTA deal doesn't require uniformity of product standards, only that they do not create needless barriers to trade. Canada also retains a full set of standards institutions, testing labs etc. Insofar as firms find it useful to produce to US standards, they may do so. It's up to them.
Please understand I do know a bit about this given that the man who discovered those basic principles was my ancestor and I have many of his original notes and books that were handed down through the family or I have collected over the years. Were I not several hundred miles away from my library at the moment I could quote you directly from his notes.
What you are ignoring (and what he did not) was that he was dealing with the absorption of energy in a closed system with no feedback mechanisms.
Indeed no serious climate scientist even argues about the basic absorption properties of gases like CO2 or water vapour in a closed system. What all the arguments on both sides revolve around is the part played by positive and negative feedback mechanisms in nature - outside of that bell jar that John Tyndall was observing. The various forcings and their impact on global temperatures are the main source of disagreement.
The rise in temperatures over the last few decades are by no means unique. I have just been part of a team publishing a paper on early occupation in the Late Upper Palaeolithic - a period that exhibited far faster changes in temperature both positive and negative. There are plenty of occasions in the recent historic and prehistoric past (recent for geologists and archaeologists anyway) when temperatures have risen both further and faster than today.
So no. Your points are not correct.
Do you know, I did actually wonder if you might be a relative of John Tyndall, but then dismissed the thought, believing that it's not an uncommon name (though you'd of course know better).
However, your illustrious ancestor doesn't make you an expert on the topic. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past. This can only happen with feedback from greenhouse gases, ice albedo and the like. It is precisely because of what we know of past climates that scientists today are so sure that our GHG emissions are having a warming effect. There really is no doubt about this. The only doubt lies in the overall speed and extent of human-induced warming and regional variations.
Thanks, Roger. I think the advertising industry is near irrelevant in politics. The best, most viral propaganda is now produced by amateurs.
As Red Adaire said "If you think it costs a lot hiring professionals wait till you see what it costs to hire amateurs"
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
Apart from a tiny handful of adverts - what political campaigns have made an impact? I think it's very telling that almost everyone cites the 80s/90s. It's eons ago.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
True, Trump hasn't yet unified the RNC, and probably never completely will, but at least the process has begun now that the Never Trumps have given up. My point is more the converse, though: when Sanders does eventually drop out, Hillary will reap the benefits in the polling as the Dems unite (which they surely will).
I agree about the electoral college.
Nevada is an interesting state - the atmosphere has become very acrimonious betwixt the HRC and Bernsters there. As yet unpolled nationally - though Trump has a demographic problem here with hispanics... but he is more popular here than in the rest of the midwest with the GOP.
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
But where does he say that they weren't sacrificing sovereignty? I have read it several times and I can see no reference to that.
This referendum shows that we remain sovereign. For that reason I would strongly dispute the use of the word "sacrifice". But I guess that's because I am a Remainer.
Why do Remainers keep saying that we are sovereign because we are having this referendum as if this whole thing were some abstract charade just to exercise our national muscles to prove a point?
We all know the UK remains ultimately sovereign. That's not the point.
The point is whether our membership of the EU - with all the powers we have granted to it through treaties - is still fit for purpose and commands our democratic consent.
If not, we have an option to choose a more independent path and a different future.
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
My own view is that Clintons' lead over Trump will be small enough that we must ask the usual questions about electoral college votes by state and not the national picture.
Correct.
However the presumptive nominee invariably gets a bounce as inclined supporters begin to accept the inevitability of the convention formality and the much of the rancour of the nomination process subsides.
Nationwide polls are a good marker but it's the swing state polls from reputable pollsters employing the correct demographics that are the key to assessing the race.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
We are sovereign.
So why did Cameron need to go to the EU for his Deal?
(Which he mostly didn't get).
Because we are members of the EU and have to agree with other member states. We are members of the EU because governments elected by the British people have decided that it is in the UK's best interests to be a member and to pool parts of our sovereignty as a result. There is nothing to stop us leaving if that is what the British people want to do. We are sovereign.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
I don't think there are many swimming pools within walking distance of the Arc de Triomphe!
It's plain as day that Labour won't deal with any of this. Shami dragging in the kitchen sink to dilute her report, and joining Labour herself speaks volumes.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
Don't I know it .....
God bless Mrs JackW for cutting short her trip by two days and she was staying with friends !! ....
Excellent thread Roger. Often forgotten now, but the 'Labour Isn't Working poster' was also accompanied by a cinema ad (which I've tried, but failed, to find on YouTube) 'Is this the queue for the 50p stalls?'
A young couple walk up to successive queues asking 'Is this the queue for the 50p stalls'?
No, this is the queue for the Unemployed No, this is the queue for hip operations.....and so forth
They finally find the correct queue (50p? You've got to be joking mate, with inflation its now £1..) and there's a rather feeble joke about Labour not being the Marx Brothers, but some other comedians.....
Not bad recall 37 years on.....
The main point is find your opponents weakness and poke fun at them.....mercilessly.....
I never saw the cinema ad but it reads really well and remembering it 37 years later speaks for itself. I love the iimage. Labour on the ropes with their gloves down and the Tories keep pummeling..... How easy it is in political advertising when telling truth isn't even expected let alone a requirement
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
booking.com is giving me the Majestic Hotel Spa, 0.2 miles from Arc de Triomphe, for $442.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
booking.com is giving me the Majestic Hotel Spa, 0.2 miles from Arc de Triomphe, for $442.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
I don't think there are many swimming pools within walking distance of the Arc de Triomphe!
I think I've got @Morris_Dancer to blame for the fact that I've had Jermaine Stewart's "We Don't Have To Take Our Clothes Off To Have A Good Time" buzzing round my head all afternoon.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
Hotel Des Saints Peres is very nice and relatively inexpensive and in a great spot. No pool though
God Paris is expensive. I'm trying to book a hotel with a swimming pool, walking distance (2km or so) from the Arc de Triomphe. And I'd like to spend less than £700 a night. Like, a lot, lot less than £700/night.
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
booking.com is giving me the Majestic Hotel Spa, 0.2 miles from Arc de Triomphe, for $442.
I'm getting £300/night for my nights, but that works for me.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
How do you square Clinton being preferred to Sanders nationally, but doing much much worse against Trump? Or is the Clinton/Sanders figure just the Democratic electorate?
Do you know, I did actually wonder if you might be a relative of John Tyndall, but then dismissed the thought, believing that it's not an uncommon name (though you'd of course know better).
However, your illustrious ancestor doesn't make you an expert on the topic. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past. This can only happen with feedback from greenhouse gases, ice albedo and the like. It is precisely because of what we know of past climates that scientists today are so sure that our GHG emissions are having a warming effect. There really is no doubt about this. The only doubt lies in the overall speed and extent of human-induced warming and regional variations.
Not so. We currently do not understand what variations in the sun's output specifically affect climate nor are we clear what the forcing effects were on the past. We are not even clear which are the dominant positive and negative forcing effects right now nor what effect the large heat sinks are having. Indeed one of the main explanations put forward by the AGW proponents for the recent slow down in temperature rises was deep ocean heat sinks. Something that the most recent studies have found to be sadky absent. I am afraid the idea that the science is in anyway clear is simply a myth propogated for political rather than scientific reasons.
And I am something of an expert as I have spent 30 years or so studying and carrying out palaeoenvironmental modelling in the private sector. That doesn't for a second mean you should believe me for that reason but I just wanted to correct your claim if only for reasons of vanity.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
I'm not sure whether I prefer my Brexit debate to focus on the possibility of the consequences including the heat death of the universe or on the appropriate treatment by fruiterers of musiform comestibles.
I'm looking forward to the LEAVE poster with the message
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE SEX and YOU DON'T NEED TO BE MARRIED TO THE EU TO TRADE WITH IT
Plus a suitable image.
(Acknowledgements to Morris Dancer)
In short
FREE LOVE equals FREE TRADE
Talking of slogans ......after 50 years Avis have just dropped the most famous in the history of advertising.
In 1963 Hertz were spending five dollars on advertising to every one spent by Avis. Avis were on the rocks. They hired the best agency in New York to come up with a campaign. They agreed on condition it couldn't be interfered with or changed.
The campaign was instantly hated by all the execs at Avis but the the MD decided to run with it anyway. He sent a memo to his staff telling them that though they were the experts in car rentals DDB were the experts in advertising.
DDB’s campaign tried an idea unknown at the time. They admitted they weren’t the best. The slogan was “WE TRY HARDER” and their first ad read ‘When You’re Only No 2 You Try Harder. Or Else’
Within a year they turned in the first profit for 13 years and from there the business grew at an average of 20% a year. Hertz didn’t respond because ‘The Market Leader never talks about a competitor’
After several years of losing market share Hertz relented and came out with an iconic response of their own. “For years Avis have been telling you Hertz are number 1. Now we’re going to tell you why”
That's the power of a slogan! I'm not sure Free Love=Free Trade cuts it!
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
No we are not. Sorry but this just shows your lack of understanding. The fact that a slave could buy himself out of slavery did not make him any less a slave as long as he did not do so.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
Saw a great docu about plane disappearances over Nevada/Colorado - unpredictable air pressure peculiarities IIRC
How do you square Clinton being preferred to Sanders nationally, but doing much much worse against Trump? Or is the Clinton/Sanders figure just the Democratic electorate?
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
Like the Scottish Nationalists, the Brexiteers misunderstand the nature of sovereignty in the modern world. The reality of power is that it is shared. No-one exercises it absolutely. Everyone, even the most powerful, is constrained by law, by the need to seek agreement, by consent.
Right from the start, Prof. Tomkins is wrong. The individual States of what became the US were plainly sacrificing sovereignty. One can certainly argue that the benefits of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the costs, but there is no doubt that they were sacrificing sovereignty.
Did he say that? From what I understand he is saying that sovereignty was safeguarded by some pooling of it. There being degrees of sovereignty. If each state had insisted on absolute sovereignty it would have been more vulnerable to attack. By pooling sovereignty in certain areas, the ability to be sovereign in many others was made more secure.
I think that, in the circumstances of 1787, the advantages of sacrificing sovereignty outweighed the disadvantages, but I think it's rhetorical sleight of hand to claim that the States weren't sacrificing sovereignty.
In the same way, it's rhetorical sleight of hand to argue that we aren't sacrificing sovereignty to supranational institutions by being an EU member State. Again, for the sake of argument, the benefits of doing so may outweigh the costs, but we shouldn't pretend we aren't doing so.
I'd agree with all that. There is a reason that the Supreme Court in the USA is so called. Sovereignty can be divided and the US constitution does reserve very significant powers to the states (though in practice, these are a good deal more limited due to the ultimate power of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation), but while there is an argument that the collective arrangement that the American states entered into grew their sovereignty as a whole - e.g. vis a vis European powers' ability to meddle in the continent - it nonetheless involved a sacrifice of sovereignty to the centre.
I think, considering the referendum, that some reference to the American Civil War should have been made in this post and those that preceded it.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
Saw Hillary on TV this morning saying she's going to put Bill in charge of revitalizing the US economy, because he knows how to do it.
This just emphasizes the hole she is digging for herself. As Sanders has forced her ever further leftwards, she has had to flip flop on one policy after another, and at this point is campaigning against pretty much all her husband's major policies while he was in power.
So she is campaigning against herself by offering Bill as a solution - one measure of the extreme somersault she will have to perform to get back anywhere near the middle ground once Sanders has finally quit the race. It's a big ask.
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
I'm sure the Flat Earth Society was very popular in its day.
Yes, and I'm sure as the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day, flat earthers strenuously objected to maverick views that dared to contradict that consensus.
"There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
Saw a great docu about plane disappearances over Nevada/Colorado - unpredictable air pressure peculiarities IIRC
Is that related to microbursts? That has been used to explain a number of accidents on take off and landings. They are very powerful, very localized down winds emanating out of storm clouds that basically push the aircraft into the ground. Elsewhere, they wreak havoc on trees and housing.
Do you know, I did actually wonder if you might be a relative of John Tyndall, but then dismissed the thought, believing that it's not an uncommon name (though you'd of course know better).
However, your illustrious ancestor doesn't make you an expert on the topic. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past. This can only happen with feedback from greenhouse gases, ice albedo and the like. It is precisely because of what we know of past climates that scientists today are so sure that our GHG emissions are having a warming effect. There really is no doubt about this. The only doubt lies in the overall speed and extent of human-induced warming and regional variations.
Not so. We currently do not understand what variations in the sun's output specifically affect climate nor are we clear what the forcing effects were on the past. We are not even clear which are the dominant positive and negative forcing effects right now nor what effect the large heat sinks are having. Indeed one of the main explanations put forward by the AGW proponents for the recent slow down in temperature rises was deep ocean heat sinks. Something that the most recent studies have found to be sadky absent. I am afraid the idea that the science is in anyway clear is simply a myth propogated for political rather than scientific reasons.
And I am something of an expert as I have spent 30 years or so studying and carrying out palaeoenvironmental modelling in the private sector. That doesn't for a second mean you should believe me for that reason but I just wanted to correct your claim if only for reasons of vanity.
I'm afraid that you certainly don't come across as an expert in the field. From what I've read, climatologists have a very good idea of the main forcings and feedback effects, though of course uncertainty remains, in particular, regarding the effect of clouds.
Maybe you are not aware that the so-called hiatus is no more - temperatures over the last couple of years have totally eclipsed previous records. Of course the air temperature doesn't rise smoothly, and this is indeed because of heat sloshing in and out of the oceans. The slowdown seen during the 2000s is not statistically significant. At the moment, all eyes are on the Arctic ice extent, which is a current low and is threatening to set a new record this summer. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Perhaps you could refer me to one or two of your papers. I'd be interested to read your arguments.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
Saw a great docu about plane disappearances over Nevada/Colorado - unpredictable air pressure peculiarities IIRC
Why does the observation/model distinction make any difference to the nature of the two scientific consensuses? They are both theories derived from observation. There is plenty of modelling in climate change science too. The consensus on those isn't as firm but it hasn't been around for more one hundred years either.
Modelling is the problem. It is not observation or experimentation. Modelling has its use but it is then supposed to be used to develop experiments which show whether the modelling is accurate. It is not supposed to be the be all and end all with models being used to support other models without reference to what is actually happening in the real world. That is the difference between the Theory of evolution and the AGW hypothesis. One is backed up by observation whilst the other is backed up by models - themselves based upon specific assumptions.
AGW is backed up by a lot more than models. It is backed up by the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases, which has been well understood for over a century, and paleoclimatic observations of such things as the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration evident in ice cores. It's a lot more than a hypothesis; it's a very well founded theory supported by large amounts of evidence, not least, the rapid rise in global temperature over the last few decades. There is virtually no doubt in the scientific world that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon.
May I suggest discussing your views on https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ and their other forums. An awful lot of very smart and knowledgeable people will disagree with you.
Hmm. I wince when people link to blogs like that. None of them on either side of the argument are really good examples of scientific rigour.
Given it's the most read site on the subject with over 272m views - I think its more than *a blog*. We have to disagree here.
I'm sure the Flat Earth Society was very popular in its day.
Yes, and I'm sure as the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day, flat earthers strenuously objected to maverick views that dared to contradict that consensus.
It was also the institutions that objected to Galileo's writings that the earth went around the Sun and not the Sun going around us. They also tried to silence him.
"There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/
Bang on the money. Nice and polite Mr Corbyn and the man he appointed his shadow chancellor were active supporters of the IRA. There is no getting round this.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
Those who wished to sell to the EU market, yes. If there was a domestic UK demand for a powerful form of kettle, then they would not be obliged to, no.
This is no different to when the UK wishes to sell into the US. Doesn't mean we adopt Yankee standards across the whole UK (not that the EU would allow us to anyway)
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
I was immediately reminded of an ancient TV ad for Swan brand electric kettles, which boiled a pint of water in 94 seconds.
When I had a kettle (haven't had one for years, and most US homes don't, though I suspect most ex-pat homes do) I always had a Russell Hobbs.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
I agree. Nothing has been sacrificed, nothing has been surrendered. We remain in control of our own destiny as a country. We are sovereign.
No we are not. Sorry but this just shows your lack of understanding. The fact that a slave could buy himself out of slavery did not make him any less a slave as long as he did not do so.
A slave could not walk away from his owner. We can walk away from the EU. It's our choice. No ifs and no buts. There were a fair few ifs and buts with a slave buying his freedom. We are not slaves.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
Saw a great docu about plane disappearances over Nevada/Colorado - unpredictable air pressure peculiarities IIRC
Is that related to microbursts? That has been used to explain a number of accidents on take off and landings. They are very powerful, very localized down winds emanating out of storm clouds that basically push the aircraft into the ground. Elsewhere, they wreak havoc on trees and housing.
Yes, exactly - the pilots have no warning and no chance to avert disaster in mountainous areas. Suggested that was the cause of Steve Fossett's crash.
Apparently Hezza's just gone full frontal on Boris - near racist, extraordinary utterances, not fit to be PM.
Heseltine's comments are hardly consistent with a campaign oozing confidence. Signs of panic there perhaps?
Nigel Farage said if the margin of victory was small we'd need another referendum because there would be such a large body of people who didn't want to be in the EU! I don't know whether that shows confidence or that I've just misheard!
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Indeed.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
Don't think I ever saw that, but I do remember a programme where wave tank models were used to try to create freak waves in order to explain a couple of disappeared trawlers, and a discussion of how these freak waves periodically appear off the coast of South Africa where 3 currents meet and create a 'chaotic sea'
Saw a great docu about plane disappearances over Nevada/Colorado - unpredictable air pressure peculiarities IIRC
The so-called Nevada Triangle - where Steve Fossett and 2000 other craft went down.
"There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/
Bang on the money. Nice and polite Mr Corbyn and the man he appointed his shadow chancellor were active supporters of the IRA. There is no getting round this.
. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past.
Really? Isn't the whole concept of Chaos Theory that very simple deterministic systems, without any feedback, can be so sensitive to inputs that the outputs are unpredictable and that, for tiny input variations, massive output variations can occur - the whole if a Butterfly in Brazil thing.
Yes, that is so, but the outcomes still have to obey the laws of physics. We know, for example, that the earth has warmed by about 1°C over the past century or so and that the sun's output has not changed appreciably during this time. In order to maintain radiation balance, something else must have changed, the obvious candidate being the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
But life adds a dimension. To all intents and purposes, while obeying the laws of physics, life appears to make the ball of entropy roll up hill.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
So long as one appreciates the limitations of the models, it's hard to see a sensible alternative to models for guiding decision-making. What would you suggest? Guesswork? Prayer? Chicken entrails?
The understanding of the principles at work that comes from striving to get a successful predictive model, as opposed to the faulty predictions of the model.
The key is in your first sentence. Alas, most of the politicians, and some of the most prominent scientists-turned-salesmen-turned-politicians who make up the 'consensus' either unwittingly or knowingly disregard it.
PS In essence, I'd proposed greater emphasis on qualitative rather than quantitative approaches.
His own argument reduces it to absolutes because he places no limit on what extent of sovereignty he thinks needs to be shared.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand get by perfectly well without the EU, or its equivalent.
Canada sacrifices a lot of sovereignty to the US, both de facto and formally through NAFTA. As an example, as @rcs1000 has pointed out, product standards in Canada are effectively set by the US, in much the same way as they would continue to be in the UK in the event of Brexit.
For businesses that choose to export to the EU, yes. But we do not need 100% of EU regulations applying to 100% of all businesses, families and people.
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
Oh sure, it's certainly true that the EU affects more areas than NAFTA does. However, the point is that this is about degrees of sovereignty, not some absolute binary choice of either being sovereign or not. And if we decide to Leave, the degree to which we regain sovereignty in day-to-day matters will depend on what deal we reach with the EU. It will certainly be less than many people think, product standards being a prime example where I doubt that anything much will change.
And I think almost all Leavers know and understand that.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while in the EU: insufferable assault on our sovereignty.
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs on models for export to the EU, while developing its own regs for both domestic and non-EU export markets = Freedom.
I'm afraid that you certainly don't come across as an expert in the field. From what I've read, climatologists have a very good idea of the main forcings and feedback effects, though of course uncertainty remains, in particular, regarding the effect of clouds.
Maybe you are not aware that the so-called hiatus is no more - temperatures over the last couple of years have totally eclipsed previous records. Of course the air temperature doesn't rise smoothly, and this is indeed because of heat sloshing in and out of the oceans. The slowdown seen during the 2000s is not statistically significant. At the moment, all eyes are on the Arctic ice extent, which is a current low and is threatening to set a new record this summer. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Perhaps you could refer me to one or two of your papers. I'd be interested to read your arguments.
Sorry but I'm that posting you really do betray how little you know. No serious climatologist would ever consider using El Nino years as part if a trend. They really would get laughed out of the lab. It is the same reason AGW skeptics were attacked for using 1998 as the starting point for a trend. If that is the best you can do then you really are on dodgy ground.
Comments
I agree about the electoral college.
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/732590507927437312
And, no, it's not "a lot" in Canada. It's just focussed on trade. Canada has its own immigration, justice and home affairs, social or employment, trade, regional, commercial and agriculture policies, except to the very limited extent these have been agreed to be mutualised in a bilateral treaty with the US.
It is incomparable to the EU.
It is a really facile argument to say that because no nation has (practically) absolute sovereignty over absolutely everything ergo any amount we surrender to the EU is fine.
In every state there is politics.
We all know the UK remains ultimately sovereign. That's not the point.
The point is whether our membership of the EU - with all the powers we have granted to it through treaties - is still fit for purpose and commands our democratic consent.
If not, we have an option to choose a more independent path and a different future.
There are two parts to producing an effective political ad. The brief and answering the brief. In political advertising I would think the brief is the most important. In normal advertising it's the other way round which is why the creatives make the big bucks. Amateurs making you smile on the net without a brief without research and without targetting are more often than not a complete waste of time.
@MrHarryCole: BJ team says he "simply miss spoke - should have said of 2 or 3 not more than". Point is there is an EU law about presentation of bananas
However, your illustrious ancestor doesn't make you an expert on the topic. For one thing, we know that positive feedback effects must dominate climate change. This is because the variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbital parameters are far too small to have produced the huge variations in temperature of the past. This can only happen with feedback from greenhouse gases, ice albedo and the like. It is precisely because of what we know of past climates that scientists today are so sure that our GHG emissions are having a warming effect. There really is no doubt about this. The only doubt lies in the overall speed and extent of human-induced warming and regional variations.
Dumping Adam & Eve was surely more likely because they weren't doing the job. Which client changes horses if they're happy? I've never met one, nor done so myself.
We are sovereign.
So why did Cameron need to go to the EU for his Deal?
(Which he mostly didn't get).
I don't need the Georges V, but there must be something.
As yet unpolled nationally - though Trump has a demographic problem here with hispanics... but he is more popular here than in the rest of the midwest with the GOP.
Saffffffffeeeeeeee spaceeeeeeeee....
However the presumptive nominee invariably gets a bounce as inclined supporters begin to accept the inevitability of the convention formality and the much of the rancour of the nomination process subsides.
Nationwide polls are a good marker but it's the swing state polls from reputable pollsters employing the correct demographics that are the key to assessing the race.
But we'd kill for the level of sovereignty Australia and Canada enjoys in its day-to-day governance over what we currently have in the EU.
God bless Mrs JackW for cutting short her trip by two days and she was staying with friends !! ....
FREE LOVE equals FREE TRADE
booking.com is giving me the Majestic Hotel Spa, 0.2 miles from Arc de Triomphe, for $442.
Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University (and Duck fame) had a program for the wavetank that would generate seemingly insignificant waves from the paddles which would then combine at one point in the cycle to a single giant 'claw' in the centre of the tank that would reach up and grab a model boat, before returning to flat calm.
Most entertaining
[That's a joke, BTW. Can't be too careful these days
As an analogy, think of a ball rolling down a rocky slope. The precise path of the ball as it bounces down the slope will indeed be chaotic and impossible to predict, but we still know that the law of gravity means that it must end up somewhere at the bottom of the slope. Even chaotic systems have some predictable properties.
Thanks!
Clinton 42 .. Trump 40
Sanders 50 .. Trump 37
Clinton 47 .. Sanders 41
https://morningconsult.com/2016/05/poll-trump-barely-leads-trump-nationally/
Attributed to Chuck Berry who may have got it elsewhere.
And I am something of an expert as I have spent 30 years or so studying and carrying out palaeoenvironmental modelling in the private sector. That doesn't for a second mean you should believe me for that reason but I just wanted to correct your claim if only for reasons of vanity.
The atmosphere may be the obvious candidate, but it is not the only one.
Don't have the time for the full climate change debate at the moment. But my problems lie not so much with whether or not climate change exists or not, how great it will be, or whether it is anthropogenic or not. Rather. my problems lie more with over-reliance on modeling to guide political and economic decision-making - beyond the point where it is rational to do so.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897
Indeed. But there wasn't much chance of Hezza becoming PM anyway.
In 1963 Hertz were spending five dollars on advertising to every one spent by Avis. Avis were on the rocks. They hired the best agency in New York to come up with a campaign. They agreed on condition it couldn't be interfered with or changed.
The campaign was instantly hated by all the execs at Avis but the the MD decided to run with it anyway. He sent a memo to his staff telling them that though they were the experts in car rentals DDB were the experts in advertising.
DDB’s campaign tried an idea unknown at the time. They admitted they weren’t the best. The slogan was “WE TRY HARDER” and their first ad read ‘When You’re Only No 2 You Try Harder. Or Else’
Within a year they turned in the first profit for 13 years and from there the business grew at an average of 20% a year. Hertz didn’t respond because ‘The Market Leader never talks about a competitor’
After several years of losing market share Hertz relented and came out with an iconic response of their own. “For years Avis have been telling you Hertz are number 1. Now we’re going to tell you why”
That's the power of a slogan! I'm not sure Free Love=Free Trade cuts it!
UK kettle manufacturers following EU kettle regs while not in the EU: FREEDOM!!
This just emphasizes the hole she is digging for herself. As Sanders has forced her ever further leftwards, she has had to flip flop on one policy after another, and at this point is campaigning against pretty much all her husband's major policies while he was in power.
So she is campaigning against herself by offering Bill as a solution - one measure of the extreme somersault she will have to perform to get back anywhere near the middle ground once Sanders has finally quit the race. It's a big ask.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/
Is that related to microbursts? That has been used to explain a number of accidents on take off and landings. They are very powerful, very localized down winds emanating out of storm clouds that basically push the aircraft into the ground. Elsewhere, they wreak havoc on trees and housing.
I was going to add something about Cameron's ISIS comments (probably the worst to date), but there's been an awful lot of tosh from both sides.
Maybe you are not aware that the so-called hiatus is no more - temperatures over the last couple of years have totally eclipsed previous records. Of course the air temperature doesn't rise smoothly, and this is indeed because of heat sloshing in and out of the oceans. The slowdown seen during the 2000s is not statistically significant. At the moment, all eyes are on the Arctic ice extent, which is a current low and is threatening to set a new record this summer. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Perhaps you could refer me to one or two of your papers. I'd be interested to read your arguments.
http://www.weather.gov.hk/aviat/amt_e/cause/microburst_e.gif
This is no different to when the UK wishes to sell into the US. Doesn't mean we adopt Yankee standards across the whole UK (not that the EU would allow us to anyway)
Opportunity Knocks.
LEAVE the EU - JOIN THE WORLD
When I had a kettle (haven't had one for years, and most US homes don't, though I suspect most ex-pat homes do) I always had a Russell Hobbs.
Boris does have form...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/boris-says-sorry-over-blacks-have-lower-iqs-article-in-the-spectator-6630340.html
It's understandable if he might be a bit tetchy.
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
The key is in your first sentence. Alas, most of the politicians, and some of the most prominent scientists-turned-salesmen-turned-politicians who make up the 'consensus' either unwittingly or knowingly disregard it.
PS In essence, I'd proposed greater emphasis on qualitative rather than quantitative approaches.
Bl88dy scholarship boys. Never quite trusted them. Not One of Us.