April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded globally according to NOAA continuing the streak of 'warmest ever' months. The April record was beaten by a whopping 0.28C. Worrying times indeed...
Not really. El Nino, well documted crap siting of measuring stations next to aircon vents etc and adjustment of data that makes what the opinion pollsters did in the last week or two of the 2015 campaign so the polls converged look like a vicarage tea party. Im with Jeremys brother on this.
There seems to be a very close correlation between Euroscepticism and AGW denial.
yes and correlation and causation are closely linked thefeoire Euroescepticism causes global warming .
Deny it if you can !
I can believe that given the epic amount of hot air generated by some Leavers
How can hot air compete with War, Famine Plague, No booze cruises ?
To paraphrase The Untouchables, Leave brought a water pistol to a tank fight.
The situation in Scotland could not be more different. All the main parties, including Ruth's rampant Tories, are for In. Leave have a token presence in the media but there is no sign of any campaigning or canvassing at all. The only document we have had is the booklet from the Government which duly arrived after the elections were out of the way.
I would be very surprised if turnout in Scotland was not very modest. Local elections have more buzz than this. A lot more.
Yes, well, take my report for what it is - info from one of the strongest Labour wards in Britain, with a membership of over 10% of the electorate, full of enthusiastic Guardianistas who see political activity as a major part of their lives. That isn't typical - really I just meant to say that the machine in Corbyn heartland is buzzing, which is a useful little piece of the jigsaw as we try to guess turnout, because some in the media mistakenly think that Corbynistas aren't too bothered or closet Leavers.
But it's coming up a lot in my social circle in London too (work, poker, etc.). I think London turnout is going to be high.
Where in London do you live Nick? Has anyone been brave enough to come out as a Leaver?
Thanks for your words of encouragement to me yesterday, by the way.
Thought it was Islington North? Isn't the Original Corbynista the Palmer Elected Representative?
Loving the thought of all those Guardianistas earnestly talking to themselves :-) .
Miss Plato, I was searching for varieties of drink (not for myself, research for a fictional borderline alcoholic), and, in the Amazon section for alcoholic beverages, and found alcohol-free wine.
It just baffles me. Like fake meat. If you want meat, eat meat. If you want wine, drink wine. I don't drink Ribena and pretend it's burgundy...
Edited extra bit: I suppose some people suffer allergies or suchlike, but it still seems odd.
Give the sudden ending of the flight status reports that seems unlikely- more probably it's a reference to the beacons which automatically go off.
Yes, from the timing it looks like the reference is to aircraft mounted ELT that broadcasts on emergency frequencies when it comes into contact with water.
There's no good ending to this, it's looking more and more likely to have been a bomb, the questions now move to how and where did the bomb get on the plane. Whatever may have been left of Egypt's tourist industry has just disappeared with this plane.
Big questions for the French too, if it is a bomb. I really hope not.
Reports that it was on a three leg flight - with a stop in Tunisia too. Haven't we had bombs placed onboard at other locations and detonated later? Sky expert said only 10% of airplane 'accidents' happen whilst cruising.
Active Tracking showed a direct flight. Few years ago I used to take the Paris Cairo flight quite regularly when I was working out there. I don't recollect this flight being split destination previously but of course with lower footfall it might be considered necessary these days.
It was - r/t Paris direct - previous trip had been to Tunis (but then again a few flights back had been to Brussels)
It was interesting that yesterday's Yougov poll had voters agreeing that Remain's claims were "exaggerated and unrealistic" by 48/33%. The equivalent numbers for Remain were 43/37%.
April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded globally according to NOAA continuing the streak of 'warmest ever' months. The April record was beaten by a whopping 0.28C. Worrying times indeed...
Not really. El Nino, well documted crap siting of measuring stations next to aircon vents etc and adjustment of data that makes what the opinion pollsters did in the last week or two of the 2015 campaign so the polls converged look like a vicarage tea party. Im with Jeremys brother on this.
There seems to be a very close correlation between Euroscepticism and AGW denial.
There's probably a positive correlation between those who are fed up with unelected EU bureaucrats telling us what to do, and those who are fed up with unelected environmentalists telling us what to do, yes.
Since when are scientists elected? Childish in the extreme.
It is quite amazing what reaction the possible Brexit is causing around the world..apparently everything depends on us staying in..fascinating that such a small cog in such a massive machine can cause so much havoc when it breaks...and we were so unimportant before that..
It was interesting that yesterday's Yougov poll had voters agreeing that Remain's claims were "exaggerated and unrealistic" by 48/33%. The equivalent numbers for Remain were 43/37%.
That's Alastair's point (3), isn't it? They'll agree they are over the top but still conclude Leave is, on balance, risky.
They might not have concluded Leave was quite so risky if the Government hadn't gone quite so OTT (in other words, the Government calculate the more OTT they go the more it moves the median risk dial to the right) so Remain think it's worth them going as far as they can.
Incidentally, in your second sentence, I presume you mean Leave not Remain?
Miss Plato, I was searching for varieties of drink (not for myself, research for a fictional borderline alcoholic), and, in the Amazon section for alcoholic beverages, and found alcohol-free wine.
It just baffles me. Like fake meat. If you want meat, eat meat. If you want wine, drink wine. I don't drink Ribena and pretend it's burgundy...
Edited extra bit: I suppose some people suffer allergies or suchlike, but it still seems odd.
Other way round imo: if fine wine appreciation were really about flavour and not getting hammered in sophisticated company, there'd be a thriving market in non-alcoholic wine for billions of muslims and other abstainers.
Sky saying the model of aircraft has only reported 68 mechanical failures in 28yrs. That's amazing reliability.
Modern aircraft don't just fall out of the sky any more, they're incredibly reliable and getting more so with each generation. There's 7,000 A320 family aircraft in service, only 34 of which have been written off for any reason. There's over 1,000 Boeing 777 around, and only one mechanical write off accident (at Heathrow a few years back) plus whatever the hell happened to MH370.
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded globally according to NOAA continuing the streak of 'warmest ever' months. The April record was beaten by a whopping 0.28C. Worrying times indeed...
Not really. El Nino, well documted crap siting of measuring stations next to aircon vents etc and adjustment of data that makes what the opinion pollsters did in the last week or two of the 2015 campaign so the polls converged look like a vicarage tea party. Im with Jeremys brother on this.
There seems to be a very close correlation between Euroscepticism and AGW denial.
yes and correlation and causation are closely linked thefeoire Euroescepticism causes global warming .
Deny it if you can !
I can believe that given the epic amount of hot air generated by some Leavers
How can hot air compete with War, Famine Plague, No booze cruises ?
To paraphrase The Untouchables, Leave brought a water pistol to a tank fight.
It is quite amazing what reaction the possible Brexit is causing around the world..apparently everything depends on us staying in..fascinating that such a small cog in such a massive machine can cause so much havoc when it breaks...and we were so unimportant before that..
Our kingdom for a tampon, and now everyone will get toxic shock syndrome...
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
It is quite amazing what reaction the possible Brexit is causing around the world..apparently everything depends on us staying in..fascinating that such a small cog in such a massive machine can cause so much havoc when it breaks...and we were so unimportant before that..
That's because the global status quo is very fragile right now. Any number of things from Chinese or Italian indebtedness to European immigrant waves, from president Trump to stock market collapses look to be right around the corner. The plebs are in a febrile mood almost everywhere and the establishment feels terribly exposed. The camel's back is very heavily loaded. Brexit is a big straw.
The situation in Scotland could not be more different. All the main parties, including Ruth's rampant Tories, are for In. Leave have a token presence in the media but there is no sign of any campaigning or canvassing at all. The only document we have had is the booklet from the Government which duly arrived after the elections were out of the way.
I would be very surprised if turnout in Scotland was not very modest. Local elections have more buzz than this. A lot more.
Yes, well, take my report for what it is - info from one of the strongest Labour wards in Britain, with a membership of over 10% of the electorate, full of enthusiastic Guardianistas who see political activity as a major part of their lives. That isn't typical - really I just meant to say that the machine in Corbyn heartland is buzzing, which is a useful little piece of the jigsaw as we try to guess turnout, because some in the media mistakenly think that Corbynistas aren't too bothered or closet Leavers.
But it's coming up a lot in my social circle in London too (work, poker, etc.). I think London turnout is going to be high.
Where in London do you live Nick? Has anyone been brave enough to come out as a Leaver?
Thanks for your words of encouragement to me yesterday, by the way.
Thought it was Islington North? Isn't the Original Corbynista the Palmer Elected Representative?
Loving the thought of all those Guardianistas earnestly talking to themselves :-) .
Bloke in my office who's a Corbynista who lives in Islington.
He wants the under 50s to have double-votes as well as EU citizens.
Looks like Hamilton is taking the full blame for the Spanish collision. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Can't see him lasting here until 2018. Rosberg contact up this year.
Mercedes' bosses send warning to Hamilton after collision with Rosberg in Spanish GP
LEWIS HAMILTON has been warned by Mercedes' bosses that he is "too aggressive" after the collision with Nico Rosberg which ended their race at the Spanish Grand Prix was labelled "stupid".
"It is stupid, we could have won this race," said Mercedes' non-executive chairman Niki Lauda. "Lewis is too aggressive. I need to talk to them and hear their explanation."
Daily Express.
What is the timing of this? That Lauda quote is surely what he said during the race itself, not the outcome of any enquiry.
April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded globally according to NOAA continuing the streak of 'warmest ever' months. The April record was beaten by a whopping 0.28C. Worrying times indeed...
Not really. El Nino, well documted crap siting of measuring stations next to aircon vents etc and adjustment of data that makes what the opinion pollsters did in the last week or two of the 2015 campaign so the polls converged look like a vicarage tea party. Im with Jeremys brother on this.
There seems to be a very close correlation between Euroscepticism and AGW denial.
yes and correlation and causation are closely linked thefeoire Euroescepticism causes global warming .
Deny it if you can !
I can believe that given the epic amount of hot air generated by some Leavers
How can hot air compete with War, Famine Plague, No booze cruises ?
To paraphrase The Untouchables, Leave brought a water pistol to a tank fight.
Oi, let it be known I wrote to Matthew Elliot on 29th February saying Vote Leave had brought a knife to a gun fight.
A good summary. I think you've accurately painted a picture of two campaigns producing little other than white noise. Both have reasonably strong USP's so It's surprising neither seem to be concentrating on them in a more focussed way.
Yesterday someone asked me which way I was voting. I told him and asked him the same. He said what he's been hearing recently about the things the EU have been doing has made him really angry so he's not sure. (and he has a property in Spain).
What things was he talking about? I haven't heard them. The problem with unfocussed campaigns is people pick up the snippits that reinforce their own prejudices whatever they may be so it becomes difficult to predict
Miss Plato, I was searching for varieties of drink (not for myself, research for a fictional borderline alcoholic), and, in the Amazon section for alcoholic beverages, and found alcohol-free wine.
It just baffles me. Like fake meat. If you want meat, eat meat. If you want wine, drink wine. I don't drink Ribena and pretend it's burgundy...
Edited extra bit: I suppose some people suffer allergies or suchlike, but it still seems odd.
Other way round imo: if fine wine appreciation were really about flavour and not getting hammered in sophisticated company, there'd be a thriving market in non-alcoholic wine for billions of muslims and other abstainers.
Non-alcoholic beer sells well in Muslim countries, and tastes better than it used to. N/a wine not so much, I guess it's more difficult to get the alcohol out without losing the subtleties of flavour in wine.
Mr. Eagles, so, badly enough another war happens, and, in the future, Carthage has to rescue the Roman Empire?
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
The situation in Scotland could not be more different. All the main parties, including Ruth's rampant Tories, are for In. Leave have a token presence in the media but there is no sign of any campaigning or canvassing at all. The only document we have had is the booklet from the Government which duly arrived after the elections were out of the way.
I would be very surprised if turnout in Scotland was not very modest. Local elections have more buzz than this. A lot more.
Yes, well, take my report for what it is - info from one of the strongest Labour wards in Britain, with a membership of over 10% of the electorate, full of enthusiastic Guardianistas who see political activity as a major part of their lives. That isn't typical - really I just meant to say that the machine in Corbyn heartland is buzzing, which is a useful little piece of the jigsaw as we try to guess turnout, because some in the media mistakenly think that Corbynistas aren't too bothered or closet Leavers.
But it's coming up a lot in my social circle in London too (work, poker, etc.). I think London turnout is going to be high.
London, though, has a large BME population, whose turnout is likely to be low, according to the BES.
In my social circle admitting to voting Leave is like admitting to drowning kittens.
Talking of Guardianistas, there is a glorious "normal-misreporting-for-the-Guardian" cockup this morning.
The European Environmental Correspondent has a huge song and dance about how Portugal has increased it's % of renewables (incl. hydro) since 2013 (followed by lots of superficial dribbling in the comments):
As recently as 2013, Portugal generated half its electricity from combustible fuels, with 27% coming from nuclear, 13% from hydro, 7.5% from wind and 3% from solar, according to Eurostat figures.
By last year the figure had flipped, with wind providing 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together providing 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association.
The reason the numbers don't seem to add up is that the basline second set of figures relate to the entire Euro-28, not Portugal. Portugal has no online nuclear power at all. Here is the real graph from the Portugal Renewable Energy Association:
King Cole, you mean regarding Rosberg being in the wrong engine mode?
If so, the Hamilton collision could have been beneficial for Rosberg (as Hamilton would otherwise have stormed to victory, if Rosberg's car were dodgy).
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
Superb post. Fact-based scepticism is actually healthy. Unfortunately most on here will just blindly parrot out phrases such as "AGW trough" to much applause...
Mr. Eagles, so, badly enough another war happens, and, in the future, Carthage has to rescue the Roman Empire?
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
Thatchers original degree was chemistry but she subsequently trained as a barrister. Her first job, post University, was making ice-cream flow better. Not sure whether she ever actually appeared in court after her legal qualification.
Mr. Eagles, so, badly enough another war happens, and, in the future, Carthage has to rescue the Roman Empire?
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
Thatchers original degree was chemistry but she subsequently trained as a barrister. Her first job, post University, was making ice-cream flow better. Not sure whether she ever actually appeared in court after her legal qualification.
On topic: disagree. The value is in Leave, there's five weeks to go and any black swan "Events" between now and then are much more likely to be in favour of Leave.
I guess the big unknown is turnout, will people wake up to the referendum when the TV debates start, and will Labour enthuse their apathetic vote out on the day for an unenthusiastic remain vote in the Tory internal conflict? A sunny day could leave everyone in the beer gardens, and a rainy day keep everyone at home.
FWIW, the Labour machine now seems fully engaged. I've have a list of the TWENTY FIVE canvassing and leafleting events for Remain that my local ward expects me to do between now and polling day. Whatever else people think of me, I don't think anyone would accuse me of lack of dedication to the cause, but hell, that's something nearly every day. What's that like? It's like a General Election schedule, is what it is.
Interesting. And the really positive thing is that Jeremy is going away on holiday so he won't spoil things.
The situation in Scotland could not be more different. All the main parties, including Ruth's rampant Tories, are for In. Leave have a token presence in the media but there is no sign of any campaigning or canvassing at all. The only document we have had is the booklet from the Government which duly arrived after the elections were out of the way.
I would be very surprised if turnout in Scotland was not very modest. Local elections have more buzz than this. A lot more.
Isn't it all a bit distorted in Scotland by the SNP officially being pro-Remain but actually wanting Leave to win?
There is definitely an element of the SNP who want Brexit to trigger a second referendum but how large they are I don't know. It does seem to be the case, unlike Nick's description of Labour, that they are going to put very little time and effort into encouraging their supporters to the polling stations.
Labour in Scotland are entirely focussed on licking their wounds and the Tories are still in party mode. There will be some Scottish Tories voting leave (like me) but no one wants to be seen publically disagreeing with Ruth at this point.
It does not help leave that UKIP have a minimal presence or organisation here. I will be frankly amazed if Scotland breaks 50% on turnout. It may drag the whole UK figure down a touch.
Several SCon msps are for out aren't they? Though I accept discretion would be the better part of valour in this case.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Talking of hot air, have Vote Leave followed through with their pledge to take ITV to court over Farage's appearance?
I think you can put that into the same category as Dave;s fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the EU.
I've just written a thread for Sunday that features the Northern part of the Emerald Isle.
Ah RedHandLand. I went to school there when I was nine. Before my first RI lesson I was asked if I was Protestant or Catholic as they were progressive and had both sorts of Christians attending who only split for RI. I didn't know, so they made a guess.
I can con firm Nick P's assesment downthread, from the other side of the river. Labour is treating this like a general election - we have temporary staff, a thorough canvassing programme, leaflets and letters. No effort is being spared to get the voters out, and in my experience there is a high level of interest and turnout will be high. BME voters may be slightly less enthusiastic but I think you can expect Mayor Khan to be a major influence on them - he certainly enthused them during his election campaign. Inner London is virtually unanimous for Remain - there is no Leave activity and it's very rare to find people declaring for Leave on the doorstep when canvassing.
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
You put the words right into his mouth.
If you have a theory then you had better be able to back it up. (And Yes! I believe in Climate Change)
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Although a convinced Remainer, I agree. Dave’s doing us no favours. You’d almost think he was a secret Leaver.
Mr. Eagles, so, badly enough another war happens, and, in the future, Carthage has to rescue the Roman Empire?
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
Thatchers original degree was chemistry but she subsequently trained as a barrister. Her first job, post University, was making ice-cream flow better. Not sure whether she ever actually appeared in court after her legal qualification.
I vaguely recall reading that Mrs Thatcher the tax lawyer was prone to sympathise with clients fighting tax assessments rather than devising effective legal strategies against the revenue.
Mr. L, Mr. Moses, hmm. I'd heard Lauda blamed Hamilton but the team was playing it down.
Also heard that Rosberg felt he was robbed of a win, whereas Hamilton was taking a more philosophical approach.
Lauda's comment was in the immediate aftermath, before anyone had spoken to the drivers or looked at the data.
From later analysis Rosberg was way slower than he wanted to be (wrong mode) and didn't realise how quickly Lewis was closing the gap. The stewards said a racing incident which is about right, it's difficult to blame the driver in front for a collision like that but from the team point of view Rosberg screwed up. The best thing Mercdes can do is to play it down and let them keep racing each other - they're still favourites for both titles if they don't take each other off again.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
Mr. Eagles, so, badly enough another war happens, and, in the future, Carthage has to rescue the Roman Empire?
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
Thatchers original degree was chemistry but she subsequently trained as a barrister. Her first job, post University, was making ice-cream flow better. Not sure whether she ever actually appeared in court after her legal qualification.
Mr Whippy was perfection.
Yup, she’d have done well if she’d stuck to the food industry.
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
Two points.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
April 2016 was the warmest April ever recorded globally according to NOAA continuing the streak of 'warmest ever' months. The April record was beaten by a whopping 0.28C. Worrying times indeed...
Not really. El Nino, well documted crap siting of measuring stations next to aircon vents etc and adjustment of data that makes what the opinion pollsters did in the last week or two of the 2015 campaign so the polls converged look like a vicarage tea party. Im with Jeremys brother on this.
There seems to be a very close correlation between Euroscepticism and AGW denial.
People who actually look at the evidence rather than blindly following what they are told.
Apparently the search area for the missing plane is in the deepest part of the Med, 15-17,000' of water. Not good for the investigation, but at least they know where to look and there's boats and planes already in the area.
Talking of hot air, have Vote Leave followed through with their pledge to take ITV to court over Farage's appearance?
I think you can put that into the same category as Dave;s fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the EU.
I've just written a thread for Sunday that features the Northern part of the Emerald Isle.
Ah RedHandLand. I went to school there when I was nine. Before my first RI lesson I was asked if I was Protestant or Catholic as they were progressive and had both sorts of Christians attending who only split for RI. I didn't know, so they made a guess.
My favourite, possibly apocryphal story, about Northern Ireland
A visitor goes to Northern Ireland and a native asks him
native: Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?
Visitor: Neither, I'm an atheist
Native: Is it the Catholic God you don't believe in or is it the Protestant God you don't believe in?
"Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial."
The evidence is not direct because of the number of confounding factors. Some gases have the capability to warm the air, the Earth may well be warming (and this is a fifty percent chance at anytime because the earth's 'overall' temperature is never static). The move from association to certainty is the problem.
Science proceeds by testing a hypothesis on the basis it is wrong. Unfortunately, it often assembles a rickety construction and fits in repairs until the whole edifice eventually crumbles, and we're well aware of this. Especially when scientists' careers are tied up in the subject. AGW may be correct. It may not be. Only when it predicts, can it become respectable. Don't ever equate AGW with relativity ... Einstein will be getting dizzy.
Economics claims to predict (see Remain recently). Although it does predict, it's often wrong, therefore it is not a true science.
The True Believers in AGW want us to do something now because disaster awaits if we don't - the famous precautionary principle. It's a reasonable opinion.
But the Precautionary Principle is NOT science - it is a principle for risk/benefit.
I don't call myself a denier, I call myself a retired scientist.
Mr. Eagles, thought you were going to raise the marriage anecdote I heard here a few years ago:
An atheist is marrying a Catholic girl in Northern Ireland. He's going through the wedding rehearsal, and the priest begins to wonder why he's so unfamiliar with how things go.
The atheist confesses he doesn't believe in God.
The priest stares at him, then sighs. "Thank God for that. I thought you were a Protestant."
Apparently the search area for the missing plane is in the deepest part of the Med, 15-17,000' of water. Not good for the investigation, but at least they know where to look and there's boats and planes already in the area.
I'm always surprised by how hard it can be to find downed planes at times - Steve Fosset's search was huge and that took just over a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett
The concept of value in betting is widely misunderstood, most punters think that if a horse/golfer/politician is a long price they are value, it just isn't true. Value is linked to probability in terms of the price available compared to the real odds, 11/10 against heads or tails is a value bet irrespective of the previous million tosses.
Football is a good example, Liverpool, with their huge support, are always overbet, supporters back them not because they're value but because they want them to win. Liverpool are 9/1 in places for the league next season, ridiculously short but most punters don't care. The people who backed Leicester pre season didn't blog about value, they wanted a bit of fun. It was a bookie's paradise, parading blokes who'd won £thousands for a couple of quid while they bank the £millions placed on the big clubs.
The 1/4 Leave may well pay out, chances are it will, but to me a 25% return more than a month away when polls are so inconclusive and events so unpredictable does not represent an over the odds betting opportunity. Markets like this are best left alone for people on here, its almost impossible to be rational.
Apparently the search area for the missing plane is in the deepest part of the Med, 15-17,000' of water. Not good for the investigation, but at least they know where to look and there's boats and planes already in the area.
A PPrune poster has pointed out that "Given the altitude and airspeed at the point of disappearence the plane, or parts of it, will likely be quite some distance south east of the last know location, which could be in shallower parts of the Med.”
And apparently there’s an as yet unconfirmed report of wreckage.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
The concept of value in betting is widely misunderstood, most punters think that if a horse/golfer/politician is a long price they are value, it just isn't true. Value is linked to probability in terms of the price available compared to the real odds, 11/10 against heads or tails is a value bet irrespective of the previous million tosses.
Football is a good example, Liverpool, with their huge support, are always overbet, supporters back them not because they're value but because they want them to win. Liverpool are 9/1 in places for the league next season, ridiculously short but most punters don't care. The people who backed Leicester pre season didn't blog about value, they wanted a bit of fun. It was a bookie's paradise, parading blokes who'd won £thousands for a couple of quid while they bank the £millions placed on the big clubs.
The 1/4 Leave may well pay out, chances are it will, but to me a 25% return more than a month away when polls are so inconclusive and events so unpredictable does not represent an over the odds betting opportunity. Markets like this are best left alone for people on here, its almost impossible to be rational.
Obviously nothing to do with the journalist who was the other half of the affairs :-D .
Women have no ability to make decisions for themselves, dontchaknow !
It's another Thick of It scandal - she's ruined her reputation, two MSPs have lost their spouses/family and were allegedly fighting over the journalist in the Commons bar. And claimed nookie on expenses...
It is quite amazing what reaction the possible Brexit is causing around the world..apparently everything depends on us staying in..fascinating that such a small cog in such a massive machine can cause so much havoc when it breaks...and we were so unimportant before that..
That's because the global status quo is very fragile right now. Any number of things from Chinese or Italian indebtedness to European immigrant waves, from president Trump to stock market collapses look to be right around the corner. The plebs are in a febrile mood almost everywhere and the establishment feels terribly exposed. The camel's back is very heavily loaded. Brexit is a big straw.
Best argument I've heard for Lefties to vote OUT for quite some time.
Where in London do you live Nick? Has anyone been brave enough to come out as a Leaver?
Thanks for your words of encouragement to me yesterday, by the way.
We have more in common than one might suppose, I think . It would be nice to meet sometime.
Yes, as Matt says, Islington North, St George's Ward. It's not quite as Guardianista as I make out - some big council estates too, and so multi-ethnic that you no longer bother to try to think where people have come from - nearly everyone's a bit mixed, with no dominant culture or class, which is how I think multiethnic societies work best.
But the ward party has reached the critical mass that the slightest type of electoral activity sends the machine into high gear. On the strongest estate the contact rate is 85%, which is insane given the turnover in Central London - we never topped 60% in Broxtowe. The effect of that is that it mobilises people who elsewhere couldn't care less. In the Mayoral election I was being stopped in the street by people who didn't look like regular voters to me - mums with prams, very young people, people with only moderate English - anxiously asking how it was going.
Normally it's all completely irrelevant given that Tories are so rare (they fight it out with the Greens at sub-20% each), so at GEs the membership fans out to nearby marginals, but of course for Mayoral and referendum activity everyone's vote counts.
I've not met any Leavers yet though I've met some don't knows. But to confess, I've not been that active myself - I've left my full-time job in favour of the fun but demanding world of consultancy work, so I'm spending a lot of time sorting out contracts etc. I feel guilty and will try to mend my ways in the coming weeks.
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
Two points.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
Apparently the search area for the missing plane is in the deepest part of the Med, 15-17,000' of water. Not good for the investigation, but at least they know where to look and there's boats and planes already in the area.
I'm always surprised by how hard it can be to find downed planes at times - Steve Fosset's search was huge and that took just over a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett
Yes, I saw that one being discussed here the other night. They found half a dozen other crashed planes during that search too. The USA is a very big place.
The biggest successful search was for AF447, an A330 which came down in deep Atlantic waters off the cost of Brazil. After several expeditions over two years they found it and recovered the black boxes only a couple of km from where they found debris floating the day after the accident. Managed to read the data from them both too!
Black boxes have sonar pingers that run for around 30 days, they *should* be able to find these quite quickly from today's plane. There's plenty of navy in the area that will rush to assist, and the Med is somewhat easier to search than the Atlantic.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
Accurate and perfectly articulated
A North London Romance
If you're thinking of fking a chimp don't dress it up like a gimp for you just can't tell whether an ape dressed in leather will smack you and become your pimp
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
Accurate and perfectly articulated
A North London Romance
If you're thinking of fking a chimp don't dress it up like a gimp for you just can't tell whether an ape dressed in leather will smack you and become your pimp
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
Global warming is a fact. What is unclear is the extent, if any, that it is due to human activity and in particular, urbanisation and industrialisation. AFAIK there can be no "scientific" answer to this last question because we have no comparators.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
Accurate and perfectly articulated
A North London Romance
If you're thinking of fking a chimp don't dress it up like a gimp for you just can't tell whether an ape dressed in leather will smack you and become your pimp
What a fertile imagination you have
Is that a catholic fertile imagination or a protestant one ? :-)
Simon Richards @simplysimontfa · May 17 It's fitting that serial liar Cameron should wheel out his pal Heseltine - the Eurofanatic who knifed Margaret Thatcher - to attack Boris.
Simon Richards Retweeted Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep · May 17 Wouldn't be a huge surprise if in five years time Cam, Os & Carney were all on mega money with Goldman or other pro-Remain banks, would it?
Simon Richards @simplysimontfa · May 11 4 more good reasons to #VoteLeave - Blair, Brown, Cameron and Major: four Prime Ministers who led us into economic disasters & illegal wars.
Simon Richards @simplysimontfa · May 5 Only when Japan has compensated the millions of victims of its war crimes should we take its Prime Minister's advice on how to vote.
Mr. Eagles, thought you were going to raise the marriage anecdote I heard here a few years ago:
An atheist is marrying a Catholic girl in Northern Ireland. He's going through the wedding rehearsal, and the priest begins to wonder why he's so unfamiliar with how things go.
The atheist confesses he doesn't believe in God.
The priest stares at him, then sighs. "Thank God for that. I thought you were a Protestant."
Catholic: The trouble with you Protestants is...... Man: But I'm an agnostic. Catholic: Look, mate, I don't care what kind of Protestant you are ...
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
It shows you are too cowardly to.stand behind your comments. Not surprising then that you adhere to the norms of those who seek to spread by law what they cannot challenge with proper scientific method.
In even more surprising news The Sun have been making up stories again. If REMAIN do win it'll show the waning influence of the once mighty right wing press. The Telegraph The Sun The Express The Times and The Mail all favour LEAVE
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
Two points.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
In mathematical terms it is probably only a conjecture.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
It shows you are too cowardly to.stand behind your comments. Not surprising then that you adhere to the norms of those who seek to spread by law what they cannot challenge with proper scientific method.
It means it is the Internet and most people stick to usernames, and that it signifies nothing else other than standard commenting procedure. That applies whatever side of this argument people are on, note those with usernames on both sides. Dont like it, well, the Internet must be hard for you.
Just for clarification are we fretting about global warming or climate change at the moment?
In the list of things that concerns voters eg economy, immigration, NHS etc the climate barely registers. Even if people have a passing concern they appreciate there's nothing they can do that will make the slightest difference. Still, a few people have made good money out of it so its in their interest to keep banging the drum.
All this anti Dave stuff is really rather sad.. I think Dave's played a blinder, that's why the Brexit supporters are so upset.. IMHO they know they are going to lose.
What's Dave's (and In's) trust rating at the moment? Unless you feel that deliberately lying and obfuscating is a good point.
Calm down.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
Accurate and perfectly articulated
A North London Romance
If you're thinking of fking a chimp don't dress it up like a gimp for you just can't tell whether an ape dressed in leather will smack you and become your pimp
What a fertile imagination you have
Is that a catholic fertile imagination or a protestant one ? :-)
My Sunday piece on Dave and George also features David Cameron as a fearsome Catholic Nun
The facts often point one way until ... they suddenly point to another.
It's been the same throughout history. A series of facts ... a hypothesis (often called a theory) fit's the current facts. People proceed on the basis it is correct. Unfortunate problems arise. they put in a fix. The problems mount, the old professors move on. A new hypothesis is formulated.
If you cannot predict, that often is the life cycle of a hypothesis, although sometimes the adverse facts don't arise.
Relativity and quantum theory for instance have met every tesr - and they have been continually tested. They have made predictions and been proved correct to the nth decimal place. Don't compare them to AGW. It may be correct but ...
Mr. Eagles, thought you were going to raise the marriage anecdote I heard here a few years ago:
An atheist is marrying a Catholic girl in Northern Ireland. He's going through the wedding rehearsal, and the priest begins to wonder why he's so unfamiliar with how things go.
The atheist confesses he doesn't believe in God.
The priest stares at him, then sighs. "Thank God for that. I thought you were a Protestant."
Catholic: The trouble with you Protestants is...... Man: But I'm an agnostic. Catholic: Look, mate, I don't care what kind of Protestant you are ...
My favourite is the story in Divorcing Jack. A Catholic priest, in the fictional border town of Crossmaheart, is shunned after getting a Prod heart transplant. A very funny book.
Can anyone who supports the theory of AGW give any recommendations as to what the entire world population can actually do about it...without starving half of that population to death.
So you do agree that AGW is happening then? Baby steps and all that...
GW is an observation- it's the A part that's the theory- and the language of its proponents to their critics - "deniers" is that of Faith, not Science, does them no favours.
AGW is a theory in the scientific sense, i.e. a hypothesis that is well supported by observations c.f. theory of gravity, quantum theory.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
Two points.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
In mathematical terms it is probably only a conjecture.
Brooding about this 'only a theory' phrase.
What's the difference between a theorem and a theory?
What's the difference between a conjecture and a hypothesis?
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
By the way on the question of explanations I am reminded once again of Feynman's brilliant quote.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
Global warming is a fact. What is unclear is the extent, if any, that it is due to human activity and in particular, urbanisation and industrialisation. AFAIK there can be no "scientific" answer to this last question because we have no comparators.
It is very hard to come up with an alternative explanation for the fact of global warming.
You see, for the earth to be warming, it must now be receiving more energy in the form of solar radiation than it is emitting in the form of thermal radiation. We know that the output of the sun has not changed substantially, nor have the earth's orbital parameters changed, so we're still receiving the same amount of energy.
What has changed is the composition of the earth's atmosphere - it now contains 40% more CO2, a greenhouse gas, than it did before the industrial revolution. That is our smoking gun - the earth's temperature is rising because an increased level of greenhouse gases has reduced thermal radiation to space, so that the earth now receives more energy than it emits.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
It shows you are too cowardly to.stand behind your comments. Not surprising then that you adhere to the norms of those who seek to spread by law what they cannot challenge with proper scientific method.
It means it is the Internet and most people stick to usernames, and that it signifies nothing else other than standard commenting procedure. That applies whatever side of this argument people are on, note those with usernames on both sides. Dont like it, well, the Internet must be hard for you.
Nope. I just don't consider views as valid from people who won't stand by them under their own name. I don't find it problematic. On the contrary I find it a useful indicator if how much to trust what people say.
I see Trump leads Clinton by 3pts with FOX (not the usual crap Rasmussen). Now clearly Trump does not lead in the polls, in general; nor does he win key state v state matchups. But what the odd national lead may do is change the narrative away from one where Clinton is inevitable. That won't help her defeat Sanders, which is a vicious cycle.
Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation for some phenomenon which may or may not have supporting evidence. A theory is a hypothesis that strongly supported by evidence and provides a good explanation of observed phenomena. This applies to AGW. There is a now very large body of scientific literature supporting the theory of AGW, and it provides a good explanation for the rapid warming that the earth is currently experiencing. It is a theory that is accepted by every single scientific body of national or international standing in the world.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
By the way on the question of explanations I am reminded once again of Feynman's brilliant quote.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
Yes. Real scepticism is the bedrock of science and should be strongly encouraged.
Comments
Loving the thought of all those Guardianistas earnestly talking to themselves :-) .
It just baffles me. Like fake meat. If you want meat, eat meat. If you want wine, drink wine. I don't drink Ribena and pretend it's burgundy...
Edited extra bit: I suppose some people suffer allergies or suchlike, but it still seems odd.
They might not have concluded Leave was quite so risky if the Government hadn't gone quite so OTT (in other words, the Government calculate the more OTT they go the more it moves the median risk dial to the right) so Remain think it's worth them going as far as they can.
Incidentally, in your second sentence, I presume you mean Leave not Remain?
There's over 1,000 Boeing 777 around, and only one mechanical write off accident (at Heathrow a few years back) plus whatever the hell happened to MH370.
Most of those criticising the theory of AGW are labelled deniers because they are doing so from a position of ignorance. Real scepticism involves studying the evidence, understanding the arguments and proposing alternative theories that fit the evidence. Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial.
He wants the under 50s to have double-votes as well as EU citizens.
He didn't reply.
Yesterday someone asked me which way I was voting. I told him and asked him the same. He said what he's been hearing recently about the things the EU have been doing has made him really angry so he's not sure. (and he has a property in Spain).
What things was he talking about? I haven't heard them. The problem with unfocussed campaigns is people pick up the snippits that reinforce their own prejudices whatever they may be so it becomes difficult to predict
Miss Plato, on a roll this week
It didn't get much mention, but I was pretty pleased with the 8 on Ricciardo leading lap 1. That, whilst lucky, was a normal bet, whereas the Verstappen thing was like falling out of a plane without a parachute and landing in a jacuzzi where Jennifer Morrison and Olivia Wilde are having a drunken tickle-fight.
Mr. Enjineeya, 'deniers'? Using a term best known for those who pretend a historically documented genocide didn't occur for those who disagree with you about a scientific theory is not persuasive.
Mr. Bromptonaut, wasn't Thatcher a chemist? And Merkel?
The European Environmental Correspondent has a huge song and dance about how Portugal has increased it's % of renewables (incl. hydro) since 2013 (followed by lots of superficial dribbling in the comments):
As recently as 2013, Portugal generated half its electricity from combustible fuels, with 27% coming from nuclear, 13% from hydro, 7.5% from wind and 3% from solar, according to Eurostat figures.
By last year the figure had flipped, with wind providing 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together providing 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal-runs-for-four-days-straight-on-renewable-energy-alone
The reason the numbers don't seem to add up is that the basline second set of figures relate to the entire Euro-28, not Portugal. Portugal has no online nuclear power at all. Here is the real graph from the Portugal Renewable Energy Association:
http://www.apren.pt/fotos/editor2/grafico_producao_por_fonte.png
That's another fake item of data for the Green Twitterati to refer back to in the future, but where do the Guardian find these goons?
1) Time to start backing Osborne as next Tory leader
2) Dave continuing on as leader and fighting the 2020 GE
Also heard that Rosberg felt he was robbed of a win, whereas Hamilton was taking a more philosophical approach.
If so, the Hamilton collision could have been beneficial for Rosberg (as Hamilton would otherwise have stormed to victory, if Rosberg's car were dodgy).
MSP Shona Robison “Bloody men and their willies" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/love-triangle-mps-get-cold-shoulder-lj8tx5gs7
Do I expect Osborne or CCHQ to give two hoots?
No, but it's my decision, my free time, my money and my vote and I'm not going to support or endorse him and his agenda in a million years.
I went to school there when I was nine. Before my first RI lesson I was asked if I was Protestant or Catholic as they were progressive and had both sorts of Christians attending who only split for RI. I didn't know, so they made a guess.
If you have a theory then you had better be able to back it up. (And Yes! I believe in Climate Change)
From later analysis Rosberg was way slower than he wanted to be (wrong mode) and didn't realise how quickly Lewis was closing the gap. The stewards said a racing incident which is about right, it's difficult to blame the driver in front for a collision like that but from the team point of view Rosberg screwed up. The best thing Mercdes can do is to play it down and let them keep racing each other - they're still favourites for both titles if they don't take each other off again.
There is plenty of noise on both sides and do you know whose fault it is?
Ours.
Oh of course not you, who is able to discern the nuanced distinctions between this economic forecast or that EU directive.
But the broad mass of UK voters have proved ourselves to need such primary colour, not to say exaggerated claims, and that's what we're getting.
No it is not a theory it is a hypothesis. Even the vast majority of those who believe it us correct accept it has not yet passed the very stringent tests required for it to be considered a theory in scientific terms.
Secondly the use of the word 'denier' was specifically promoted by some American AGW activists and politicians who wanted to equate climate skepticism with holocaust denial as a means of criminalising those who disagreed with them.
Your ignorance and arrogance whilst hiding behind a non de plume is shameful.
A visitor goes to Northern Ireland and a native asks him
native: Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?
Visitor: Neither, I'm an atheist
Native: Is it the Catholic God you don't believe in or is it the Protestant God you don't believe in?
"Simple refusal to consider the evidence is not scepticism; it is denial."
The evidence is not direct because of the number of confounding factors. Some gases have the capability to warm the air, the Earth may well be warming (and this is a fifty percent chance at anytime because the earth's 'overall' temperature is never static). The move from association to certainty is the problem.
Science proceeds by testing a hypothesis on the basis it is wrong. Unfortunately, it often assembles a rickety construction and fits in repairs until the whole edifice eventually crumbles, and we're well aware of this. Especially when scientists' careers are tied up in the subject. AGW may be correct. It may not be. Only when it predicts, can it become respectable. Don't ever equate AGW with relativity ... Einstein will be getting dizzy.
Economics claims to predict (see Remain recently). Although it does predict, it's often wrong, therefore it is not a true science.
The True Believers in AGW want us to do something now because disaster awaits if we don't - the famous precautionary principle. It's a reasonable opinion.
But the Precautionary Principle is NOT science - it is a principle for risk/benefit.
I don't call myself a denier, I call myself a retired scientist.
An atheist is marrying a Catholic girl in Northern Ireland. He's going through the wedding rehearsal, and the priest begins to wonder why he's so unfamiliar with how things go.
The atheist confesses he doesn't believe in God.
The priest stares at him, then sighs. "Thank God for that. I thought you were a Protestant."
Women have no ability to make decisions for themselves, dontchaknow !
The concept of value in betting is widely misunderstood, most punters think that if a horse/golfer/politician is a long price they are value, it just isn't true. Value is linked to probability in terms of the price available compared to the real odds, 11/10 against heads or tails is a value bet irrespective of the previous million tosses.
Football is a good example, Liverpool, with their huge support, are always overbet, supporters back them not because they're value but because they want them to win. Liverpool are 9/1 in places for the league next season, ridiculously short but most punters don't care. The people who backed Leicester pre season didn't blog about value, they wanted a bit of fun. It was a bookie's paradise, parading blokes who'd won £thousands for a couple of quid while they bank the £millions placed on the big clubs.
The 1/4 Leave may well pay out, chances are it will, but to me a 25% return more than a month away when polls are so inconclusive and events so unpredictable does not represent an over the odds betting opportunity. Markets like this are best left alone for people on here, its almost impossible to be rational.
And apparently there’s an as yet unconfirmed report of wreckage.
Yes, as Matt says, Islington North, St George's Ward. It's not quite as Guardianista as I make out - some big council estates too, and so multi-ethnic that you no longer bother to try to think where people have come from - nearly everyone's a bit mixed, with no dominant culture or class, which is how I think multiethnic societies work best.
But the ward party has reached the critical mass that the slightest type of electoral activity sends the machine into high gear. On the strongest estate the contact rate is 85%, which is insane given the turnover in Central London - we never topped 60% in Broxtowe. The effect of that is that it mobilises people who elsewhere couldn't care less. In the Mayoral election I was being stopped in the street by people who didn't look like regular voters to me - mums with prams, very young people, people with only moderate English - anxiously asking how it was going.
Normally it's all completely irrelevant given that Tories are so rare (they fight it out with the Greens at sub-20% each), so at GEs the membership fans out to nearby marginals, but of course for Mayoral and referendum activity everyone's vote counts.
I've not met any Leavers yet though I've met some don't knows. But to confess, I've not been that active myself - I've left my full-time job in favour of the fun but demanding world of consultancy work, so I'm spending a lot of time sorting out contracts etc. I feel guilty and will try to mend my ways in the coming weeks.
My use of the word "denier" is quite accurate. A holocaust denier is one who denies the historical evidence of the holocaust and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the disappearance of 6 million Jews; an AGW denier is one who denies the scientific evidence for AGW and gives no reasonable alternative explanation for the sudden rapid warming of the earth that has coincided with the change in the composition of its atmosphere resulting from human activities.
Whether I choose to give my identity or not is entirely my decision and in no way affects the content of my argument.
The biggest successful search was for AF447, an A330 which came down in deep Atlantic waters off the cost of Brazil. After several expeditions over two years they found it and recovered the black boxes only a couple of km from where they found debris floating the day after the accident. Managed to read the data from them both too!
Black boxes have sonar pingers that run for around 30 days, they *should* be able to find these quite quickly from today's plane. There's plenty of navy in the area that will rush to assist, and the Med is somewhat easier to search than the Atlantic.
If you're thinking of fking a chimp
don't dress it up like a gimp
for you just can't tell whether
an ape dressed in leather
will smack you and become your pimp
Man: But I'm an agnostic.
Catholic: Look, mate, I don't care what kind of Protestant you are ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36319085
In the list of things that concerns voters eg economy, immigration, NHS etc the climate barely registers. Even if people have a passing concern they appreciate there's nothing they can do that will make the slightest difference. Still, a few people have made good money out of it so its in their interest to keep banging the drum.
The facts often point one way until ... they suddenly point to another.
It's been the same throughout history. A series of facts ... a hypothesis (often called a theory) fit's the current facts. People proceed on the basis it is correct. Unfortunate problems arise. they put in a fix. The problems mount, the old professors move on. A new hypothesis is formulated.
If you cannot predict, that often is the life cycle of a hypothesis, although sometimes the adverse facts don't arise.
Relativity and quantum theory for instance have met every tesr - and they have been continually tested. They have made predictions and been proved correct to the nth decimal place. Don't compare them to AGW. It may be correct but ...
SNP's Pete Wishart calls for a debate on World War 2 so Tory and Labour politicians can get all their Hitler thoughts out of their system
What's the difference between a theorem and a theory?
What's the difference between a conjecture and a hypothesis?
And who's got bragging rights?
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
EDIT - now Kyle is confessing he's no idea what's going on and asking the audience for help.
You see, for the earth to be warming, it must now be receiving more energy in the form of solar radiation than it is emitting in the form of thermal radiation. We know that the output of the sun has not changed substantially, nor have the earth's orbital parameters changed, so we're still receiving the same amount of energy.
What has changed is the composition of the earth's atmosphere - it now contains 40% more CO2, a greenhouse gas, than it did before the industrial revolution. That is our smoking gun - the earth's temperature is rising because an increased level of greenhouse gases has reduced thermal radiation to space, so that the earth now receives more energy than it emits.
Can you think of a better explanation?
Internet annual sales growth 9.3%.
Back webstore retailers and logistics providers.
This report seems to forecast that Brexit would equal:
a) Slightly more affordable housing for purchase;
b) Lower rents for a period;
c) Increased supply of houses available for purchase;