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.
I saw a pollster ranking a week ago that placed NBC/WSJ top for accuracy, Fox were top three IIRC, Quinthingy were near bottom.
Good. A judgeent against crap editors who think the public have a right to intrude on the sex lives of celebrities. I hope it's costs the Sun a lots of money. No wonder as Topping suggests this referendum is being conducted in baby speak
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.
Trump will be praying for a bad tempered Democratic convention that still nominates Hillary but brings out some of her skeletons.
A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone, they hate the Establishment of which Clinton is the embodiment.
That Southern Temptress led those wee innocent SNP children astray..wicked..wicked..woman..bet she is a Tory.. I wonder if they kept their Tam O Shanters on in bed..
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
There are many other factors in action - we are in an interglacial period at the moment for example.
In geological time, we have not created or destroyed carbon. If anything we have trapped carbon in coal and oil deposits therefore burning these will only increase the carbon levels to what they were previously
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.
Trump will be praying for a bad tempered Democratic convention that still nominates Hillary but brings out some of her skeletons.
A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone, they hate the Establishment of which Clinton is the embodiment.
"A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone" I mean, I don't think they will, but that's certain the question to be asking.
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
Good. A judgeent against crap editors who think the public have a right to intrude on the sex lives of celebrities. I hope it's costs the Sun a lots of money. No wonder as Topping suggests this referendum is being conducted in baby speak
Is there anyone who doesn't know who "PJS" is by now? He's not even particularly famous. All he's doing now is keeping the lawyers in new cars and school fees.
"Looking bad for LEAVE in general, barring the blackest of swans. It feels like both sides have shot their wads early, and now the porn stars of politics stand around the film set, bored and awkward. Fluffers smoke".
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.
Trump will be praying for a bad tempered Democratic convention that still nominates Hillary but brings out some of her skeletons.
A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone, they hate the Establishment of which Clinton is the embodiment.
"A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone" I mean, I don't think they will, but that's certain the question to be asking.
40% in WVr said they'd vote Trump instead - assuming just a fraction of that - will help. Assume surrounding states will have some similar voters.
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.
Does it have the phrase "everyone on the North thinks George Osborne is a twat "?
No but the other thread for Sunday I'm planning to write speculates if Remain do win as large as the phone polls suggests
1) Time to start backing Osborne as next Tory leader
2) Dave continuing on as leader and fighting the 2020 GE
I can't imagine Dave fighting the 2020 election. He's made it abundantly clear he'll be off before then and reneging on promises really isn't his thing. Osborne as leader is a distinct possibility though. For one thing, the anti-barometer of Brexiteer opinion is vehemently against him, so that must mean his trajectory is back on the up.
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.
You might try basing your conclusions on an assessment of their arguments rather then on your assessment of their character. Your tendency to judge on the basis of trust rather than reason seems to be a trait common to both the AGW deniers and many eurosceptics.
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.
Trump will be praying for a bad tempered Democratic convention that still nominates Hillary but brings out some of her skeletons.
A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone, they hate the Establishment of which Clinton is the embodiment.
"A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone" I mean, I don't think they will, but that's certain the question to be asking.
40% in WVr said they'd vote Trump instead - assuming just a fraction of that - will help. Assume surrounding states will have some similar voters.
A small number, sure. But the return of other supproters to the Clinton column will balance that out (from unsure/not voting). The test will be how many *do* switch *after* Sanders has actually dropped out.
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
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.
There are Any number of good reasons people might post on the Internet with a username, even if you don't have any problem doing so there are legitimate reasons others might, or simply not care to, for example not bothering the hassle of changing a longstanding handle
If you want to dismiss arguments on that basis, not even considering possible validity, fine, but you aren't taking some noble stand against anonymous trolls or cowards or anything, you're just stating the 80% of Internet comments are worthless. Which may be true, but not for that reason.
We're all free to do as we like of course, but personally, albeit anonymously, the only objection I have is to superior posturing based on ones position, with no obvious backup to that, since you see as much nonsense, rudeness or other ills of the Internet, from those using their own names as those who do not. So it is not a useful indicator at all., or morally superior as your use of coward shows you believe it to be.
But I now have to return to work, so feel free to rail against the fact people use usernames on the Internet. Next stop, email addresses not being just a name, exagerrated Facebook claims, Twitter hysteria, partisan bilge....
Timer device ex Cairo (in wheel-well IED) that gets it through Paris and after departure CDG, completes the circuit to the barometric device that then initiates on descent Cairo. Not rocket science at all - but diverts attention to a security problem at Charles de Gaulle airport (when it's really a Cairo-based initiative and perp).
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.
The Fox lead is consistent with a true Clinton lead (But a small one).
The graph at Y - 29 shows the picture of the national polling in pictoral form...
If Trump wins the national vote, then he most likely holds North Carolina - which should be an EC victory.
There is a "wrong winner" possibility, that favours Hillary marginally I think - but Trump's weakness in safe red states (Winning modestly on low turnout) could well offset that somewhat (Though outperforming in New Jersey and other NE seaboard states won't help ^_~) )
Timer device ex Cairo (in wheel-well IED) that gets it through Paris and after departure CDG, completes the circuit to the barometric device that then initiates on descent Cairo. Not rocket science at all - but diverts attention to a security problem at Charles de Gaulle airport (when it's really a Cairo-based initiative and perp).
Has the advantage of explaining why it wasn't the Paris - London flight brought down. If indeed it was brought down.
For example, If a celebrity is famous for saying 'don't do X', then is found to be 'doing X', surely there is a public interest in exposing hypocrisy and 'do as I say, not do as I do?
In future said celebrities pronouncements on the matter may be afforded the weight they deserve....
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
Certainly the start of the interglacial was marked by a large and rapid rise in temperature - closely matched by a large rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, I dispute your claim that there have been higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial; what evidence is there for this?
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
The vast majority of scientists disagree with you. If you are wrong, as they think you are, and we do nothing about it there will be costly consequences. What we can do is insulate houses, replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs and take advantage of solar, wind and tidal power which saves people money and reduces our dependence on Putin et al for our energy requirements. It makes sense to do these things even if you're a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory believer.
Good. A judgeent against crap editors who think the public have a right to intrude on the sex lives of celebrities. I hope it's costs the Sun a lots of money. No wonder as Topping suggests this referendum is being conducted in baby speak
Is there anyone who doesn't know who "PJS" is by now? He's not even particularly famous. All he's doing now is keeping the lawyers in new cars and school fees.
And sending people to the internet to search for more stories. I expect further lurid details in the Scottish Press tomorrow......
There are Any number of good reasons people might post on the Internet with a username, even if you don't have any problem doing so there are legitimate reasons others might, or simply not care to, for example not bothering the hassle of changing a longstanding handle
If you want to dismiss arguments on that basis, not even considering possible validity, fine, but you aren't taking some noble stand against anonymous trolls or cowards or anything, you're just stating the 80% of Internet comments are worthless. Which may be true, but not for that reason.
We're all free to do as we like of course, but personally, albeit anonymously, the only objection I have is to superior posturing based on ones position, with no obvious backup to that, since you see as much nonsense, rudeness or other ills of the Internet, from those using their own names as those who do not. So it is not a useful indicator at all., or morally superior as your use of coward shows you believe it to be.
But I now have to return to work, so feel free to rail against the fact people use usernames on the Internet. Next stop, email addresses not being just a name, exagerrated Facebook claims, Twitter hysteria, partisan bilge....
I didn't say they were worthless. I said they lose some validity. There are all sorts of claims and counterclaims that can be made from behind a cloak of anonymity and we have no way of knowing which are true or false. With most stuff on a site like this which is opinion based on externally verifiable data provided by trusted sources it doesn't matter but when it comes to judging the expert opinion of a contributor on a specialist subject it matters a great deal.
So no I do not dismiss views out of hand because they are anonymous but I do give more credence to those views which can be seen to be informed by the contributor's professional or personal knowledge.
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.
Trump will be praying for a bad tempered Democratic convention that still nominates Hillary but brings out some of her skeletons.
It's easy to forget now how everyone thought this would be a dynastic election between Bush and Clinton. Trump has vanquished the first dynasty and is now working on the second. If he goes on to win the sheer number of remarkable political feats he will have achieved will be incredible.
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.
You might try basing your conclusions on an assessment of their arguments rather then on your assessment of their character. Your tendency to judge on the basis of trust rather than reason seems to be a trait common to both the AGW deniers and many eurosceptics.
No I base it on my own examination of the evidence. You appear to be unwilling to do the same thing.
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.
Does it have the phrase "everyone on the North thinks George Osborne is a twat "?
No but the other thread for Sunday I'm planning to write speculates if Remain do win as large as the phone polls suggests
1) Time to start backing Osborne as next Tory leader
2) Dave continuing on as leader and fighting the 2020 GE
Osborne as leader is a distinct possibility though. For one thing, the anti-barometer of Brexiteer opinion is vehemently against him, so that must mean his trajectory is back on the up.
The weather is always changing, mostly nasty, and pretty much unpredictable, and may or may not be reversible.
But extinctions are, in any but the very longest time scales, irreversible. There is little doubt that human activity is contributing to the Holocene extinction. Humanity may even, just possibly, end up as one of the disappearing species.
There is incomparably less concern about the possible collapse of the biosphere than about the weather. Of course these two phenomena may be linked.
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
Certainly the start of the interglacial was marked by a large and rapid rise in temperature - closely matched by a large rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, I dispute your claim that there have been higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial; what evidence is there for this?
Both the Bronze Age and Roman warming periods were faster and warmer than today. The Medieval warming period was warmer but appears to have been slower to develop.
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.
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
The vast majority of scientists disagree with you. If you are wrong, as they think you are, and we do nothing about it there will be costly consequences. What we can do is insulate houses, replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs and take advantage of solar, wind and tidal power which saves people money and reduces our dependence on Putin et al for our energy requirements. It makes sense to do these things even if you're a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory believer.
I am in favour if any form of energy conservation and of increasing non fossil fuel generation. Oil us a finite resource which is completely wasted by being used for energy. So my argument is not with what we are doing. I would say we are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. My argument is purely about the misuse of science in this argument.
In the long run all that will do is bring science into disrepute.
For example, If a celebrity is famous for saying 'don't do X', then is found to be 'doing X', surely there is a public interest in exposing hypocrisy and 'do as I say, not do as I do?
In future said celebrities pronouncements on the matter may be afforded the weight they deserve....
Have they been hypocrites? If it's who everyone has suggested I can't belive they've been preaching morality. But that's not really the point. If you keep feeding people this sort of bilge they get a taste for it and it turns them into prurient morons
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 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.
You might try basing your conclusions on an assessment of their arguments rather then on your assessment of their character. Your tendency to judge on the basis of trust rather than reason seems to be a trait common to both the AGW deniers and many eurosceptics.
No I base it on my own examination of the evidence. You appear to be unwilling to do the same thing.
On the contrary, I have a scientific background and have read (and mostly understood) a great deal of the literature on the topic, and my considered opinion broadly matches that of the scientific community as expressed by scientific bodies and publications. I could only speculate on why your examination of the evidence apparently leads you to a conclusion that is wildly at odds with that of the vast majority of experts in the field.
Terrifying thing about Egyptair is that it took off from Paris. Because, if it is terrorism then there are three obvious possibles
1. A missile from a boat in the Med 2. A radical cell on board, maybe involving some staff 3. A bomb in the hold
2 and 3 cast grave doubts over French security at Roissy airport.
So that's France off the list of possible holiday destinations. Anyone for a caravan vacation in Essex?
I only hope that David Cameron refrains from using this event to claim that staying in the EU enhances our security.
Coming back full circle to being on topic, a major terror attack on mainland Europe is going to be the most visible of possible black swans before the referendum. It won't need to be mentioned directly to have an impact on perceptions of security in the EU compared to the UK.
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.
Do you trust Plato?
More or less than yourself? No.
Although I disagree with them on almost everything I trust the honesty of Roger or Alistair more than yourself or Plato. The fact that their real identities are known makes them less likely to consciously mislead or misrepresent.
Edit. The use of the word trust is misleading. I don't distrust you or Plato. I just don't give as much weight to your informed opinion ad I do to those who are open about their identities.
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
It is not necessary to come up.with an alternative explanation - at least not in pure scientific terms. All that is necessary us to show that the explanation proposed falls down based upon observation or experimentation. Given that there have been both higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial the fact that we have such a change at the moment is no proof that it is due to current CO2 levels. We lack the observational data to support such a hypothesis.
Certainly the start of the interglacial was marked by a large and rapid rise in temperature - closely matched by a large rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, I dispute your claim that there have been higher and faster changes in global temperature during this interglacial; what evidence is there for this?
Both the Bronze Age and Roman warming periods were faster and warmer than today. The Medieval warming period was warmer but appears to have been slower to develop.
I love the way the Daily Mail sleb column oft describes the evidently happy and carefree lives that well known actors and musicians must enjoy
And Hugh Bonneville, 52, was all smiles as he arrived at the 2016 BAFTA Television Awards at London's Royal Festival Hall with his wife Lulu Williams on Sunday.
Elton, who is in the midst of a legal battle with a former bodyguard, looked carefree and happy as he larked around, signing autographs for fans and greeting his public.
Mr Meeks well done for writing an article on the referendum that is reasonable and logical. I may not agree with it but i cannot argue that it is overtly partisan.
"The BES commissioned one of their studies and this suggested that Remain have a very small lead. While it is a little old, I take this very seriously indeed. So should you."
There are Any number of good reasons people might post on the Internet with a username, even if you don't have any problem doing so there are legitimate reasons others might, or simply not care to, for example not bothering the hassle of changing a longstanding handle
If you want to dismiss arguments on that basis, not even considering possible validity, fine, but you aren't taking some noble stand against anonymous trolls or cowards or anything, you're just stating the 80% of Internet comments are worthless. Which may be true, but not for that reason.
We're all free to do as we like of course, but personally, albeit anonymously, the only objection I have is to superior posturing based on ones position, with no obvious backup to that, since you see as much nonsense, rudeness or other ills of the Internet, from those using their own names as those who do not. So it is not a useful indicator at all., or morally superior as your use of coward shows you believe it to be.
But I now have to return to work, so feel free to rail against the fact people use usernames on the Internet. Next stop, email addresses not being just a name, exagerrated Facebook claims, Twitter hysteria, partisan bilge....
Well I use an anonymous name because my old workplace didn't allow us to have any kind of online presence on social media, forums or blogs without prior approval from management, only a personal facebook profile was permitted and even then you had to agree to monitoring.
My current workplace has a similar, though much less harsh rule.
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.
No dominant culture or class?
I can see why you didn't put that in the manifesto.
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.
You might try basing your conclusions on an assessment of their arguments rather then on your assessment of their character. Your tendency to judge on the basis of trust rather than reason seems to be a trait common to both the AGW deniers and many eurosceptics.
No I base it on my own examination of the evidence. You appear to be unwilling to do the same thing.
On the contrary, I have a scientific background and have read (and mostly understood) a great deal of the literature on the topic, and my considered opinion broadly matches that of the scientific community as expressed by scientific bodies and publications. I could only speculate on why your examination of the evidence apparently leads you to a conclusion that is wildly at odds with that of the vast majority of experts in the field.
Along with most people here, I use a nick, and I completely agree with you that we should judge contributions to a debate on their content rather than their source. On the other hand though, you appear to expect everyone here to swallow the AGW argument whole because of the 'scientific community' 'scientific bodies' and 'publications'. What is this if not basing your argument on people not content?
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...
Sex & Nookie Party?
The SNP's bods aren't covering themselves in glory - another month, another scandal. The ratio is quite remarkable.
Good. A judgeent against crap editors who think the public have a right to intrude on the sex lives of celebrities. I hope it's costs the Sun a lots of money. No wonder as Topping suggests this referendum is being conducted in baby speak
Is there anyone who doesn't know who "PJS" is by now? He's not even particularly famous. All he's doing now is keeping the lawyers in new cars and school fees.
And sending people to the internet to search for more stories. I expect further lurid details in the Scottish Press tomorrow......
Despite being in Scotland I have no clue who the person is. I look forward to paying no attention to further lurid details tomorrow.
I love the way the Daily Mail sleb column oft describes the evidently happy and carefree lives that well known actors and musicians must enjoy
And Hugh Bonneville, 52, was all smiles as he arrived at the 2016 BAFTA Television Awards at London's Royal Festival Hall with his wife Lulu Williams on Sunday.
Elton, who is in the midst of a legal battle with a former bodyguard, looked carefree and happy as he larked around, signing autographs for fans and greeting his public.
Two of my favourite actors and musicians.
The Sun's theatre view of an Ibsen play remains my favourite.
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
There are Any number of good reasons people might post on the Internet with a username, even if you don't have any problem doing so there are legitimate reasons others might, or simply not care to, for example not bothering the hassle of changing a longstanding handle
If you want to dismiss arguments on that basis, not even considering possible validity, fine, but you aren't taking some noble stand against anonymous trolls or cowards or anything, you're just stating the 80% of Internet comments are worthless. Which may be true, but not for that reason.
We're all free to do as we like of course, but personally, albeit anonymously, the only objection I have is to superior posturing based on ones position, with no obvious backup to that, since you see as much nonsense, rudeness or other ills of the Internet, from those using their own names as those who do not. So it is not a useful indicator at all., or morally superior as your use of coward shows you believe it to be.
But I now have to return to work, so feel free to rail against the fact people use usernames on the Internet. Next stop, email addresses not being just a name, exagerrated Facebook claims, Twitter hysteria, partisan bilge....
Well I use an anonymous name because my old workplace didn't allow us to have any kind of online presence on social media, forums or blogs without prior approval from management, only a personal facebook profile was permitted and even then you had to agree to monitoring.
My current workplace has a similar, though much less harsh rule.
Ditto. Personally, pseudonyms don't bother me at all - we can judge for ourselves if someone is consistent over a period of time and plausible in their areas of expertise.
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
And one for middle England
The venerable bishop of Birmingham Screwed young girls while confirming 'em To hymms and applause He pulled down their draws And pumped his episcopal ***** in 'em
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
Quite. When you've seen it all before - and failed to happen - why would we be convinced that *this time will be different* ?
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
If the global temperature drops by 1 degree say next year, then trips to Montana, Wyoming or Idaho are best avoided.
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.
Hurrah - a rare bit of honest common sense amidst the ridiculously early harvest of very sour grapes!
I love the way the Daily Mail sleb column oft describes the evidently happy and carefree lives that well known actors and musicians must enjoy
And Hugh Bonneville, 52, was all smiles as he arrived at the 2016 BAFTA Television Awards at London's Royal Festival Hall with his wife Lulu Williams on Sunday.
Elton, who is in the midst of a legal battle with a former bodyguard, looked carefree and happy as he larked around, signing autographs for fans and greeting his public.
Two of my favourite actors and musicians.
The Sun's theatre view of an Ibsen play remains my favourite.
I expect we'll see a lot more of a famous sleb couple with young children in the next few days.......
An alternative betting view, name checking politicalbetting.com, but not in a good way. He makes some interesting points but not sure if the way he does so is helpful to his case:
Re the cricket....still dodgy opener / #3 and my biggest bug bear we have 4 right arm seamers who are all about the same pace. Although Finn is tall and Anderson swings etc, when batsman get in to have the ball come down at around the same pace from the same side of the wicket is far easier than variety.
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...
Sex & Nookie Party?
The SNP's bods aren't covering themselves in glory - another month, another scandal. The ratio is quite remarkable.
But the SNP are different. They share mistresses to keep the cost on themselves down. Tight bar stewards.
Mr. CD13, hey! I'm neither old nor a git. I'm a benevolent youthful fellow.
The advantage of being into history is learning from vicarious experience. That's one of the reasons I'm so sceptical of the EU.
Many eurosceptics (if not most) are sceptical precisely about the EU precisely because of its direction and past behaviour, despite assurances that such an agenda was not on the table. It is that dishonesty (the gap between the assurance and the reality) that leads us to be sceptical.
Just like an employee who's already had several official warnings, it becomes harder and harder to prove they have changed and are sincere each time.
Take some hot choccy and a blanket... remainers don't need to work!!
I'll never forget the 2007 match against the Windies, this time of the year, it was Arctic temperatures.
Think the worst I’ve experienced was Scotland vs Essex in Edinburgh in early May about ten years ago, Ground faces North and IIRC there was a north-easter blowing.
An alternative betting view, name checking politicalbetting.com, but not in a good way. He makes some interesting points but not sure if the way he does so is helpful to his case:
How interesting. I really like Matthew Goodwin's stuff - I've no idea what his personal politics are, unlike almost all the rest - that this fellow is one of his assistants gives it added credence.
" Secondly, all the noise you hear on Twitter is either from fruit-bat 'Leave' evangelicals or reasoned liberals. That is the image anyway. Academia - showered in EU money - is pro-remain, and hangers on to their output, particularly those noisy on Twitter, like politicalbetting, are well known liberals too. In short, 'informed social media' doesn't want Leave to win, and doesn't want to back something it despises. The same happened with the Tory victory, Corbyn and Trump, whilst the betting public felt differently - and won. Ladbrokes lost £2m on GE 2015. An extraordinary failure when they had so much two way business to eek out a profit. This was a golden opportunity for bookmaking to prove its worth against polling, instead it just followed it, breaking the golden rule that the market knows better than a handful of traders. - See more at: http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bet-leave-at-114.html?m=1#sthash.v9vU4CqL.dpuf
I'd recommend reading it in full - 5 mins well spent.
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
My hypothesis is that Old Gits tend to be anti-EU and anti-AGW because they have been less successful in life than they would have liked, but are unable to accept that this is due to their own shortcomings. This leads them place the blame for their perceived lack of success on some form of collusion against them, thus giving rise to a mentality that is conditioned to reject any form of authoritative information. It's one step down from full-blown conspiracy theorist.
It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence.
An alternative betting view, name checking politicalbetting.com, but not in a good way. He makes some interesting points but not sure if the way he does so is helpful to his case:
I love the way the Daily Mail sleb column oft describes the evidently happy and carefree lives that well known actors and musicians must enjoy
And Hugh Bonneville, 52, was all smiles as he arrived at the 2016 BAFTA Television Awards at London's Royal Festival Hall with his wife Lulu Williams on Sunday.
Elton, who is in the midst of a legal battle with a former bodyguard, looked carefree and happy as he larked around, signing autographs for fans and greeting his public.
Two of my favourite actors and musicians.
The Sun's theatre view of an Ibsen play remains my favourite.
I expect we'll see a lot more of a famous sleb couple with young children in the next few days.......
John Wittingdale. "Belts, braces and constraints". Credit where it's due. That's classy journalism by Peter Preston. He should have gone into advertising.
"It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence."
Thank you. I stand corrected, something a scientist must always be prepared for.
Unlike Lord Kelvin who in 1900 or so suggested that Physics was finished except for a few minor decimal place alterations. I suppose quantum theory and relativity et al could be considered in that category.
"It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence."
Thank you. I stand corrected, something a scientist must always be prepared for.
Unlike Lord Kelvin who in 1900 or so suggested that Physics was finished except for a few minor decimal place alterations. I suppose quantum theory and relativity et al could be considered in that category.
Science is never finished. And never certain.
It's never finished, but Newton and Kepler's work allows us a good approximation of where Jupiter will be in the sky in 150 years and 6 days time, even though it has been superseeded.
I expect the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is similiar (Though obviously there is far less certainty in any predictive model). What we should do about it, if anything is entirely a political concern and outwith the realm of pure science.
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
My hypothesis is that Old Gits tend to be anti-EU and anti-AGW because they have been less successful in life than they would have liked, but are unable to accept that this is due to their own shortcomings. This leads them place the blame for their perceived lack of success on some form of collusion against them, thus giving rise to a mentality that is conditioned to reject any form of authoritative information. It's one step down from full-blown conspiracy theorist.
It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence.
Or it might be experience tells them otherwise! Actually old gits like myself should probably vote IN as their inevitably shorter term horizons are probably better served by greater stability. Youngsters are the ones who should vote OUT as undoubtedly their longer term interests are better served with the UK free from the shackles of the EU.
"It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence."
Thank you. I stand corrected, something a scientist must always be prepared for.
Unlike Lord Kelvin who in 1900 or so suggested that Physics was finished except for a few minor decimal place alterations. I suppose quantum theory and relativity et al could be considered in that category.
Science is never finished. And never certain.
Well, I'd certainly agree with that! There are still many mysteries out there and probably always will be. Unifying relativity and quantum theory is proving a tough nut to crack - there's something that we're just not getting; perhaps we could do with another Einstein.
Contrary to popular belief, the great discoveries usually begin not with a "Eureka!" but with a "That's funny..."
I think there are two hopes for Leave at this point. One is that the phone polls are just wrong. The other is, as you put it: "Unless Leave can talk up the risks of immigration as effectively as Remain have talked up the economic risks, I expect any movement to be towards Remain."
I expect Leave to focus increasingly on immigration. I think there's a chance that it will hit home hard. Alternatively it could blow up in Leave's face if the campaign comes across as xenophobic.
If Leave are seriously thinking about a rerun if the result is close then they may feel that it isn't worth going nuclear on immigration and risking a big defeat if it misfires. If I were them I would forget about reruns and go all out to win now. The probability of success now must be better than that of all the cards falling the right way for a rerun in the 2020s which is won by Leave.
Mr. Royale, that Tapper fellow is right about value. Weird as it is to bet on things you think won't happen... *cough*Verstappen*cough*
Dr. Prasannan, pah! No.
Hannibal did his best work in his thirties and forties. Caesar hadn't even got going by then. Antigonus Monopthalmus hadn't either. Enrico Dandolo was conquering Byzantium in his 90s.
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
My hypothesis is that Old Gits tend to be anti-EU and anti-AGW because they have been less successful in life than they would have liked, but are unable to accept that this is due to their own shortcomings. This leads them place the blame for their perceived lack of success on some form of collusion against them, thus giving rise to a mentality that is conditioned to reject any form of authoritative information. It's one step down from full-blown conspiracy theorist.
I think there's a lot in that. The social groups most likely to support Leave are primarily those who (unkindly perhaps) could be characterised as society's losers. Poorer, less educated, insecure lower-level jobs.
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills: John Swinney MSP Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution: Derek Mackay MSP Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport: Shona Robison MSP Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform: Roseanna Cunningham MSP Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs: Fiona Hyslop MSP Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities: Angela Constance MSP Cabinet Secretary for Justice: Michael Matheson MSP Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work: Keith Brown MSP Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity: Fergus Ewing MSP
Minister for Childcare and Early Years: Mark McDonald Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science: Shirley-Anne Somerville Minister for Parliamentary Business: Joe FitzPatrick Minister for Transport and the Islands: Humza Yousaf Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy: Paul Wheelhouse Minister for Employability and Training: Jamie Hepburn (Reporting to cabinet secretaries for economy and education) Minister for Public Health and Sport: Aileen Campbell Minister for Mental Health: Maureen Watt Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs: Annabelle Ewing Minister for Local Government & Housing: Kevin Stewart Minister for Social Security: Jeane Freeman Minister for International Development and Europe: Alasdair Allan
"Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren, two Australian researchers who discovered the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and deciphered its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, have been awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. 31 Oct 2005.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3598098/Supreme-Court-ruling-celebrity-injunction-case.html
A larger than expected number of Bernie supporters could well switch to Trump if they vote for anyone, they hate the Establishment of which Clinton is the embodiment.
That's what, one month's growth? Two?
I wonder if they kept their Tam O Shanters on in bed..
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.
Can you think of a better explanation?
There are many other factors in action - we are in an interglacial period at the moment for example.
In geological time, we have not created or destroyed carbon. If anything we have trapped carbon in coal and oil deposits therefore burning these will only increase the carbon levels to what they were previously
"Looking bad for LEAVE in general, barring the blackest of swans. It feels like both sides have shot their wads early, and now the porn stars of politics stand around the film set, bored and awkward. Fluffers smoke".
You've been on the Phiip Roth again. I like it!
If you want to dismiss arguments on that basis, not even considering possible validity, fine, but you aren't taking some noble stand against anonymous trolls or cowards or anything, you're just stating the 80% of Internet comments are worthless. Which may be true, but not for that reason.
We're all free to do as we like of course, but personally, albeit anonymously, the only objection I have is to superior posturing based on ones position, with no obvious backup to that, since you see as much nonsense, rudeness or other ills of the Internet, from those using their own names as those who do not. So it is not a useful indicator at all., or morally superior as your use of coward shows you believe it to be.
But I now have to return to work, so feel free to rail against the fact people use usernames on the Internet. Next stop, email addresses not being just a name, exagerrated Facebook claims, Twitter hysteria, partisan bilge....
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-3.html
Timer device ex Cairo (in wheel-well IED) that gets it through Paris and after departure CDG, completes the circuit to the barometric device that then initiates on descent Cairo. Not rocket science at all - but diverts attention to a security problem at Charles de Gaulle airport (when it's really a Cairo-based initiative and perp).
The graph at Y - 29 shows the picture of the national polling in pictoral form...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6KwNnbBO1q4dDwC1r0rujdcNByLHpVI1O2WKpzNfV8/edit#gid=0
If Trump wins the national vote, then he most likely holds North Carolina - which should be an EC victory.
There is a "wrong winner" possibility, that favours Hillary marginally I think - but Trump's weakness in safe red states (Winning modestly on low turnout) could well offset that somewhat (Though outperforming in New Jersey and other NE seaboard states won't help ^_~) )
For example, If a celebrity is famous for saying 'don't do X', then is found to be 'doing X', surely there is a public interest in exposing hypocrisy and 'do as I say, not do as I do?
In future said celebrities pronouncements on the matter may be afforded the weight they deserve....
If you are wrong, as they think you are, and we do nothing about it there will be costly consequences.
What we can do is insulate houses, replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs and take advantage of solar, wind and tidal power which saves people money and reduces our dependence on Putin et al for our energy requirements.
It makes sense to do these things even if you're a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory believer.
So no I do not dismiss views out of hand because they are anonymous but I do give more credence to those views which can be seen to be informed by the contributor's professional or personal knowledge.
But extinctions are, in any but the very longest time scales, irreversible. There is little doubt that human activity is contributing to the Holocene extinction. Humanity may even, just possibly, end up as one of the disappearing species.
There is incomparably less concern about the possible collapse of the biosphere than about the weather. Of course these two phenomena may be linked.
The departure of BTL landlords intrigues a little.
I think housing is a positive for Leave.
In the long run all that will do is bring science into disrepute.
Although I disagree with them on almost everything I trust the honesty of Roger or Alistair more than yourself or Plato. The fact that their real identities are known makes them less likely to consciously mislead or misrepresent.
Edit. The use of the word trust is misleading. I don't distrust you or Plato. I just don't give as much weight to your informed opinion ad I do to those who are open about their identities.
And Hugh Bonneville, 52, was all smiles as he arrived at the 2016 BAFTA Television Awards at London's Royal Festival Hall with his wife Lulu Williams on Sunday.
Elton, who is in the midst of a legal battle with a former bodyguard, looked carefree and happy as he larked around, signing autographs for fans and greeting his public.
Two of my favourite actors and musicians.
"The BES commissioned one of their studies and this suggested that Remain have a very small lead. While it is a little old, I take this very seriously indeed. So should you."
That is the part all should note.
My current workplace has a similar, though much less harsh rule.
I can see why you didn't put that in the manifesto.
The Common Market became the Economic Community became the European Union, just as Global Warming became Climate Change. And if we have an ice age next year, it will become Climate Instability (keep bringing in the research money, whatever you do).
Why do the Old Gits tend to be Leavers? Experience-related cynicism? We've seen it all before. When you're had several governments say "Don't worry, we can always change the direction of travel" and then either fail, or fail to try, you do tend to lose your North Korean levels of enthusiasm.
In some ways it's a pity. As Piggy laments in the William Golding novel ... "He cried for their loss of innocence."
We'll look back in a few years time and say. "Ah, bless, they had no idea, did they?"
The venerable bishop of Birmingham
Screwed young girls while confirming 'em
To hymms and applause
He pulled down their draws
And pumped his episcopal
***** in 'em
The advantage of being into history is learning from vicarious experience. That's one of the reasons I'm so sceptical of the EU.
My apologies.
http://popbitch.com/home/2016/03/31/up-the-injunction/
http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bet-leave-at-114.html?m=1
I am sure the god worship among some quarters of this idiot will continue though....
Just like an employee who's already had several official warnings, it becomes harder and harder to prove they have changed and are sincere each time.
https://twitter.com/PenguinUKBooks/status/733229385055145984
Arsenal fan John Bercow mocks Tottenham defeat in Commons
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/sport/football/dot-commons-diary/75178/arsenal-fan-john-bercow-mocks-tottenham-defeat
" Secondly, all the noise you hear on Twitter is either from fruit-bat 'Leave' evangelicals or reasoned liberals. That is the image anyway. Academia - showered in EU money - is pro-remain, and hangers on to their output, particularly those noisy on Twitter, like politicalbetting, are well known liberals too. In short, 'informed social media' doesn't want Leave to win, and doesn't want to back something it despises. The same happened with the Tory victory, Corbyn and Trump, whilst the betting public felt differently - and won. Ladbrokes lost £2m on GE 2015. An extraordinary failure when they had so much two way business to eek out a profit. This was a golden opportunity for bookmaking to prove its worth against polling, instead it just followed it, breaking the golden rule that the market knows better than a handful of traders. - See more at: http://alberttapper.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bet-leave-at-114.html?m=1#sthash.v9vU4CqL.dpuf
I'd recommend reading it in full - 5 mins well spent.
It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence.
"It wasn't Piggy, by the way, it was of course Ralph who mourned the loss of innocence."
Thank you. I stand corrected, something a scientist must always be prepared for.
Unlike Lord Kelvin who in 1900 or so suggested that Physics was finished except for a few minor decimal place alterations. I suppose quantum theory and relativity et al could be considered in that category.
Science is never finished. And never certain.
I expect the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is similiar (Though obviously there is far less certainty in any predictive model). What we should do about it, if anything is entirely a political concern and outwith the realm of pure science.
Thomas Henry Huxley
Contrary to popular belief, the great discoveries usually begin not with a "Eureka!" but with a "That's funny..."
I think there are two hopes for Leave at this point. One is that the phone polls are just wrong. The other is, as you put it: "Unless Leave can talk up the risks of immigration as effectively as Remain have talked up the economic risks, I expect any movement to be towards Remain."
I expect Leave to focus increasingly on immigration. I think there's a chance that it will hit home hard. Alternatively it could blow up in Leave's face if the campaign comes across as xenophobic.
If Leave are seriously thinking about a rerun if the result is close then they may feel that it isn't worth going nuclear on immigration and risking a big defeat if it misfires. If I were them I would forget about reruns and go all out to win now. The probability of success now must be better than that of all the cards falling the right way for a rerun in the 2020s which is won by Leave.
Mr. Royale, that Tapper fellow is right about value. Weird as it is to bet on things you think won't happen... *cough*Verstappen*cough*
Dr. Prasannan, pah! No.
Hannibal did his best work in his thirties and forties. Caesar hadn't even got going by then. Antigonus Monopthalmus hadn't either. Enrico Dandolo was conquering Byzantium in his 90s.
Forty, old? You'd have to be mad to think so.
Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills: John Swinney MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution: Derek Mackay MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport: Shona Robison MSP
Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform: Roseanna Cunningham MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs: Fiona Hyslop MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities: Angela Constance MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Justice: Michael Matheson MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work: Keith Brown MSP
Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity: Fergus Ewing MSP
Junior ministers coming up...
Minister for Childcare and Early Years: Mark McDonald
Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science: Shirley-Anne Somerville
Minister for Parliamentary Business: Joe FitzPatrick
Minister for Transport and the Islands: Humza Yousaf
Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy: Paul Wheelhouse
Minister for Employability and Training: Jamie Hepburn (Reporting to cabinet secretaries for economy and education)
Minister for Public Health and Sport: Aileen Campbell
Minister for Mental Health: Maureen Watt
Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs: Annabelle Ewing
Minister for Local Government & Housing: Kevin Stewart
Minister for Social Security: Jeane Freeman
Minister for International Development and Europe: Alasdair Allan
The Dr. Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and did not want to hear the answer that was right.http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery
"Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren, two Australian researchers who discovered the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and deciphered its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, have been awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. 31 Oct 2005.