Gone from a sky falling in mother of all recessions, to a mild drop in gdp within the margin of error?
Thing is, back before the referendum when everybody was laughing at Gove for dismissing the opinion of the experts, none of the economic forecasters predicted the sort of catastrophe that the Remain ultras kept trying to talk up. None of them. Even if you take Economists for Brexit out of the equation, the forecasts of lost growth between now and 2030 varied from moderately bad (loss of about two-third of one percent per year, for each of the next 14 years) to absolutely sod all difference.
The people who painted scenes of economic catastrophe before the referendum - many of whom have redoubled their efforts since things didn't go their way - are continuing to distort the expert consensus on the issue. As you correctly point out, these latest BCC projections suggest the continuation of growth, just at a slightly slower rate next year, before moving back towards their pre-Brexit forecasts the year after. If these losses were to go on for many years then this might, eventually, become a problem. But there is no suggestion of disaster, or even recession.
Contrast, if you will, with Italy, which joined the Euro in 1999 and has seen almost zero economic growth in real terms over the entire 17 year period of its membership. A fat lot of good the EU has done them.
I don't recall Economists for Brexit saying they would introduce an Emergency Budget in the event we voted to Leave.... George Osborne carries the can for Cameron leaving the Commons today.
All I meant was, even if you remove from the equation the one group of forecasters that was ideologically well-disposed to Brexit, all of the other groups of economists (and HM Treasury as well) made long-term forecasts that varied between neutral and only moderately negative. Though you would be right to point out that it does make Osborne's catastrophist preaching of punishment budgets all the more reprehensible.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
Great British Bake Off: BBC loses rights to broadcast show
Lost it to Channel 4 for 3 years.
EDIT: Actually, not a bad thing. I know of BBC Executives who, when ever anything negative was pointed out, or when people tried to get a wider breadth of programming commissioned, would puff out their chests and palm out, would silence the comment "But we have Bake Off...." That seemed to be the furthest horizon they could survey.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Indeed. Who can blame him. I certainly don't, though I do hope there is a way back for him either in the Lords or as a party grandee who comes on TV every so often to shit on the current PM, whoever that may be.
But why did he lie about his intentions? He has done this several times now, and has shown very clearly that his word counts for very little. The guy is thoroughly dishonourable.
Great British Bake Off: BBC loses rights to broadcast show
Lost it to Channel 4 for 3 years.
EDIT: Actually, not a bad thing. I know of BBC Executives who, when ever anything negative was pointed out, or when people tried to get a wider breadth of programming commissioned, would puff out their chests and palm out, would silence the comment "But we have Bake Off...." That seemed to be the furthest horizon they could survey.
There's no point paying silly money to keep it. At the end of the day as a public broadcaster you will have to let some things go.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It appears that the earth's average temperature goes up in the summer and down in the winter - this is presumably because land temperatures go up more than sea temperatures and the northern hemisphere has more land. So the value of '0' is the average for the year and presumably has been set to correspond with a fixed temperature of (I don't know - say 17C)
The Y-Axis is the change from this position - so an increase in the value shows that the temperature has been going up.
HOWEVER! The change in temperature is NOT from -3 to +2 (the Y-axis) but the difference between the lowest and highest points at any particular month - which I estimated to be about 1 1/4C. The time period is given at the top-left and it appears to start in 1880.
Add in a few scary colours to accentuate the difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
But in all honesty, if you were potentially in line for a big promotion at work, would you be quick to volunteer to the bosses that you were suffering an illness?
There's a HELL of a lot to criticise Hillary for when it comes to honesty and transparency, but to me it seems quite understandable to not be totally open about short-term illnesses, whereas trying to hide emails sent on official government business from any scrutiny is not reasonable.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
But in all honesty, if you were potentially in line for a big promotion at work, would you be quick to volunteer to the bosses that you were suffering an illness?
There's a HELL of a lot to criticise Hillary for when it comes to honesty and transparency, but to me it seems quite understandable to not be totally open about short-term illnesses, whereas trying to hide emails sent on official government business from any scrutiny is not reasonable.
IF it is a short-term illness. Do you have confidence it would have been a different response by Team Hillary if she DOES have a long-term illness?
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
The data is almost certainly right, the big unanswered questions are (a) what is driving such a rise [humans/not humans] and (b) what are the consequences of such a rise, on the world and humanity - or in further rises.
The data is artificially constructed by taking measurements and adjusting them to give the figures they think it should be.
The data is as reliable as the person doing the adjusting. The adjusting will inevitably be driven by current theories and others might allege all sorts of other things.
Cameron is still not yet 50, has a hot wife, lovely kids, riches beyond the ken of most mortals and I guess he really can't be arsed to hang around the commons with it's constant reminders of what might have been. I'd bail out if I was him too.
Indeed. Who can blame him. I certainly don't, though I do hope there is a way back for him either in the Lords or as a party grandee who comes on TV every so often to shit on the current PM, whoever that may be.
But why did he lie about his intentions? He has done this several times now, and has shown very clearly that his word counts for very little. The guy is thoroughly dishonourable.
What lie?
It's only a lie if he hasn't changed his mind.
Yes, it may well be a genuine change of mind. No point in lingering where you are clearly not wanted, and a few others may think that too.
I am not sure what his legacy will be. I see him as a latter day Stanley Baldwin. Not someone who will loom large in history, apart from his one legacy that matters. Rather like Tony Blair, he made his party electable again, brought them back to the top table, and then they spurned him. I don't just mean over Brexit, but rather the enirety of his legacy. Back to being the Nasty Party it is.
I really don't get Johnson's price going out. He's now at 600/690 from around 300s a couple of days ago.
Aleppo?
Didn't budge when he made the gaffe ( incidentally, despite thinking Johnson is a grifter I totally believe his explanation for that) it has totally moved with Hilary's price
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
The data is almost certainly right, the big unanswered questions are (a) what is driving such a rise [humans/not humans] and (b) what are the consequences of such a rise, on the world and humanity - or in further rises.
The data is artificially constructed by taking measurements and adjusting them to give the figures they think it should be.
The data is as reliable as the person doing the adjusting. The adjusting will inevitably be driven by current theories and others might allege all sorts of other things.
If Richard Tyndall is around he can take you through the detail, but there is plenty of evidence supporting the sort of trend shown in the graph, slightly more or slightly less. It is as ever not the data but the conclusions one draws from it. For example, is that a correlation with industrialisation? Volcanic activity? Is that increase a lot, or nothing? Is it catastrophic - or even positive? etc.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It appears that the earth's average temperature goes up in the summer and down in the winter - this is presumably because land temperatures go up more than sea temperatures and the northern hemisphere has more land. So the value of '0' is the average for the year and presumably has been set to correspond with a fixed temperature of (I don't know - say 17C)
The Y-Axis is the change from this position - so an increase in the value shows that the temperature has been going up.
HOWEVER! The change in temperature is NOT from -3 to +2 (the Y-axis) but the difference between the lowest and highest points at any particular month - which I estimated to be about 1 1/4C. The time period is given at the top-left and it appears to start in 1880.
Add in a few scary colours to accentuate the difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
Anyone who does not believe in climate change is an idiot. Change is about the only thing the climate consistently does.
The argument as you say is whether humans are modulating that change either by increasing it or damping it.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
But in all honesty, if you were potentially in line for a big promotion at work, would you be quick to volunteer to the bosses that you were suffering an illness?
There's a HELL of a lot to criticise Hillary for when it comes to honesty and transparency, but to me it seems quite understandable to not be totally open about short-term illnesses, whereas trying to hide emails sent on official government business from any scrutiny is not reasonable.
If I was in line for a big job and I had a bought of flu or pneumonia on the day, I would do my best and tell the interviewers that I wasn't at my best because of a short-term illness. That would be the truth and engender sympathy.
if I was an interviewer (voter) for a position, I would find it annoying if the candidate failed to disclose something that could affect his performance of the job.
All Mrs Clinton had to do, on Friday, was to announce that she had picked up an infection and been advised to take a few days rest. This would have been less damaging as it turns out than trying to bull it through and been caught out. The Democrats gambled - and lost.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
"Trump continued, telling the crowd he was "deeply shocked and alarmed" by Clinton choosing to "attack, slander, smear [and] demean" his supporters.
"We have the support of cops… carpenters and welders," he noted. "These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans that Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American."
"She spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country," he said. "She spoke with contempt for the people who follow the rules, pay their taxes and scratch out a living for their family."
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I really don't get Johnson's price going out. He's now at 600/690 from around 300s a couple of days ago.
Aleppo?
Didn't budge when he made the gaffe ( incidentally, despite thinking Johnson is a grifter I totally believe his explanation for that) it has totally moved with Hilary's price
Was it Jimmy Carter who asked what the Greek GNC meant?
I really don't get Johnson's price going out. He's now at 600/690 from around 300s a couple of days ago.
Aleppo?
Didn't budge when he made the gaffe ( incidentally, despite thinking Johnson is a grifter I totally believe his explanation for that) it has totally moved with Hilary's price
A reaction to the fact that Hillary being replaced would result in a clear victory for her replacement against Trump. Johnson benefits from being up against two opponents with negative ratings, if instead he's up against one negative opponent (Donald) and a sane Democrat, then his chances of winning go from slim to impossible. At an individual level, he loses support from the person who won't vote for Tweedledum nor Tweedledee, but now has another sensible option.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Good point if, and only if, she has pneumonia and hasn't got anything else. There are bits of footage around on youtube which make it look almost certain that she has serious and long standing neurological issues.
If I was in line for a big job and I had a bought of flu or pneumonia on the day, I would do my best and tell the interviewers that I wasn't at my best because of a short-term illness. That would be the truth and engender sympathy.
if I was an interviewer (voter) for a position, I would find it annoying if the candidate failed to disclose something that could affect his performance of the job.
All Mrs Clinton had to do, on Friday, was to announce that she had picked up an infection and been advised to take a few days rest. This would have been less damaging as it turns out than trying to bull it through and been caught out. The Democrats gambled - and lost.
If I failed to disclose a medical condition I would be sacked for putting rail passengers at risk and rightly so when a random drugs test showed up the medication, and possibly even prosecuted
So where does that leave a potential commander in chief who does the same?
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Hillary is still stuck at 1 point above her all time low while she picked 5 points with democrats. Trump is up only 2 points bellow his all time high, while picking none from republicans.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Poor Hillary, it seems now they have to pretend she has pneumonia for a few days so they had to cancel her California visit after their announcement yesterday.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
Meghan McCain How would @TheFix and the media have reacted in '08 if my father had his lifeless body thrown into a van and lost a shoe on camera?
Hears various talking heads claim criticism of Hilary is sexist....would never happen to a man...oh wait....but Trump is older and must have health issues, because well he's older right.
If I was in line for a big job and I had a bought of flu or pneumonia on the day, I would do my best and tell the interviewers that I wasn't at my best because of a short-term illness. That would be the truth and engender sympathy.
if I was an interviewer (voter) for a position, I would find it annoying if the candidate failed to disclose something that could affect his performance of the job.
All Mrs Clinton had to do, on Friday, was to announce that she had picked up an infection and been advised to take a few days rest. This would have been less damaging as it turns out than trying to bull it through and been caught out. The Democrats gambled - and lost.
If I failed to disclose a medical condition I would be sacked for putting rail passengers at risk and rightly so when a random drugs test showed up the medication, and possibly even prosecuted
So where does that leave a potential commander in chief who does the same?
Much as I think Clinton is only one step better than Trump (or maybe two) I do find this preoccupation with politician's health to be farcical.
The best example of this is our two great wartime leaders Churchill and Roosevelt. If we had had the same minute examination of our their health that we have our prospective leaders today they would never have got within a thousand miles of high office.
Basically if Clinton is able to do the job she does it until such times as she cannot. At that point the VP takes over - which is kind of what they are there for.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
If you really think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some massive international conspiracy of scientists, then you are, quite frankly, nuts.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
Itthe difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
Thank you... I really dislike the way climate change is a polarized debate full of agendas on both sides. I would be a little less skeptical of those giving us the information if I didnt see and read the hyperbole of the consequences.
I suppose a message of "we are experiencing a mild but clear trend of warming, over the next century we are likely to see an increase of maybe a degree, we are not sure of the impact, we believe that we might lose some areas to agriculture but open up others. We still believe that there are anthropogenic reasons that contribute to this trend, we are not entirely sure the part we are playing. We think that weather patterns might become more unpredictable, but we dont really have any evidence.
The reality is there are so many unknowns, we cant explain away the gains in polar ice of the last four years which followed a trend of loss. Nor can we explain why temperatures stayed stable for fifteen years despite a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We are working on it, it would be wise to try and contain the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere because the evidence currently suggests that any further increases could exacerbate the existing trends".
But we dont, we get the "we're all doomed" "end climate chaos now" etc.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Am I the only one who thinks Clinton might actually get a potential BOOST from yesterday?
She is generally a pretty terrible politician, but it's been shown over time that she tends to get a boost in popular support when she's perceived to be getting wronged: her approval ratings reaching an all-time high during the Lewinsky scandal, her poll numbers shooting up in the 2000 Senate race when her opponent tried to intimidate her in a debate, her suddenly pulling off shock primary wins in 2008 whenever she was on the verge of getting knocked out of the race. Women especially, even if they usually dislike and distrust her, seem to rally to her side when she's getting overly pilloried.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Does the President have a doctor on hand at all times? She probably considers herself as important as the President if that is the case.
If I was in line for a big job and I had a bought of flu or pneumonia on the day, I would do my best and tell the interviewers that I wasn't at my best because of a short-term illness. That would be the truth and engender sympathy.
if I was an interviewer (voter) for a position, I would find it annoying if the candidate failed to disclose something that could affect his performance of the job.
All Mrs Clinton had to do, on Friday, was to announce that she had picked up an infection and been advised to take a few days rest. This would have been less damaging as it turns out than trying to bull it through and been caught out. The Democrats gambled - and lost.
If I failed to disclose a medical condition I would be sacked for putting rail passengers at risk and rightly so when a random drugs test showed up the medication, and possibly even prosecuted
So where does that leave a potential commander in chief who does the same?
Much as I think Clinton is only one step better than Trump (or maybe two) I do find this preoccupation with politician's health to be farcical.
The best example of this is our two great wartime leaders Churchill and Roosevelt. If we had had the same minute examination of our their health that we have our prospective leaders today they would never have got within a thousand miles of high office.
Basically if Clinton is able to do the job she does it until such times as she cannot. At that point the VP takes over - which is kind of what they are there for.
I agree, it's farcical.
The problem here is that both sides played politics about it, and of course the cover-up and the constant lying from the Clinton camp that fuels conspiracy theories.
So in the end no one knows for sure, and people get anxious about it.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
If you really think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some massive international conspiracy of scientists, then you are, quite frankly, nuts.
Where did he say anything remotely suggesting that he thinks that?
He probably thinks that AGW exists (and even if it didn't, some steps to combat it like developing solar are good ideas in their own right) but that the evidence for it is misunderstood and overstated by militantly self-righteous thickoes who have no idea how science works.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
Itthe difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
Thank you... I really dislike the way climate change is a polarized debate full of agendas on both sides. I would be a little less skeptical of those giving us the information if I didnt see and read the hyperbole of the consequences.
I suppose a message of "we are experiencing a mild but clear trend of warming, over the next century we are likely to see an increase of maybe a degree, we are not sure of the impact, we believe that we might lose some areas to agriculture but open up others. We still believe that there are anthropomorphic reasons that contribute to this trend, we are not entirely sure the part we are playing. We think that weather patterns might become more unpredictable, but we dont really have any evidence.
The reality is there are so many unknowns, we cant explain away the gains in polar ice of the last four years which followed a trend of loss. Nor can we explain why temperatures stayed stable for fifteen years despite a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We are working on it, it would be wise to try and contain the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere because the evidence currently suggests that any further increases could exacerbate the existing trends".
But we dont, we get the "we're all doomed" "end climate chaos now" etc.
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians.
That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Does the President have a doctor on hand at all times? She probably considers herself as important as the President if that is the case.
Yes, the White House and AF1 have doctors in the entourage, and there's always a couple of ambulances in the motorcade.
Rumour has it that Hillary's quack is a neurologist rather than a GP, which just adds fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
If you really think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some massive international conspiracy of scientists, then you are, quite frankly, nuts.
Where did he say anything remotely suggesting that he thinks that?
He probably thinks that AGW exists (and even if it didn't, some steps to combat it like developing solar are good ideas in their own right) but that the evidence for it is misunderstood and overstated by militantly self-righteous thickoes who have no idea how science works.
Given that every single national and international scientific body in the world accepts the reality of AGW, the only way you can rationally deny it is by assuming some sort of huge scientific conspiracy.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Middle East is already damn near uninhabitable in the summer!! Was a cool 42 C today, so slowly getting better. They would have spent the oil money on inventing air conditioning if it wasn't already around.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Typically I would agree that climate change is something slow and barely noticeable everyday.
But this year I have spotted it, and it makes me really concerned that the change is big enough and rapid enough this year for me to spot it.
And it's not only that temperatures suddenly shifted a degree this year but that the rate of CO2 increase also shifted upwards suddenly this year:
I wish Cameron well. By delivering on the 0.7% Aid pledge he will save millions of lives. It's an extraordinary thing to say but politics is an extraordinary thing. Because of David Cameron millions of people who would otherwise have had early and painful deaths will now survive. One of them may be the next Hitler. One of them may cure Cancer. One of them might set foot on Mars. Politics changes the world. As politicians go Cameron's legacy on Aid will be extraordinary. No matter what else now happens he'll always know he saved millions of lives. Who'll have millions f children themselves and then....
Do you have evidence that it will save millions of lives? Seems a very dubious assertion to me.
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians.
That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No it is not unequivocal. Look I know you are some sort of religious nut about this which is why I no longer bother trying to explain it to you but, no matter how much you go on about consensus, settled science and the precautionary principle, you are still clearly unable to grasp the basic ground rules of the scientific principle. Until you can apply those to the AGW hypothesis you are a very long way away from 'unequivocal'.
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Does the President have a doctor on hand at all times? She probably considers herself as important as the President if that is the case.
Yes, the White House and AF1 have doctors in the entourage, and there's always a couple of ambulances in the motorcade.
Rumour has it that Hillary's quack is a neurologist rather than a GP, which just adds fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists.
Does Obama's doctor stand right next to him when he does a public appearance? That is what struck me. I can completely believe the POTUS or a candidate has medical people following, but a sunday morning outing and your doctor is right at your side the whole time.
Then is when it is clear the original story of unexpected overheating was BS and clearly she was ill.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "snip"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
If you really think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some massive international conspiracy of scientists, then you are, quite frankly, nuts.
Where did he say anything remotely suggesting that he thinks that?
He probably thinks that AGW exists (and even if it didn't, some steps to combat it like developing solar are good ideas in their own right) but that the evidence for it is misunderstood and overstated by militantly self-righteous thickoes who have no idea how science works.
Given that every single national and international scientific body in the world accepts the reality of AGW, the only way you can rationally deny it is by assuming some sort of huge scientific conspiracy.
Yes, but again, nobody is saying what you think they are saying. And I promise you science is not done by making unverifiable sweeping statements about the views of "scientific bodies."
No, people said she was ill, they were called lunatic conspiracy theorists and generally derided. It turns out she is ill, and with quite a serious illness as well.
Maybe, but I'm not sure that's how voters (especially women) are going to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's takeaways are "I don't like her, but hats off to her for going to that event in the first place even while ill, what a trooper" or "everyone gets ill, it's really not fair to be slamming her for this".
That might have happened if she didn't lie about not being ill and called anyone who said that a crazy person. As it is, she just looks shifty.
She has been called ill by her opponents a lot longer than she has had pneumonia. I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
Her opponents have said she's lying about being ill for a long time. Now she's been proven to have lied about being ill.
Is there evidence she was already diagnosed?
They say she was diagnosed on Friday. So yes.
They clearly thought she was ill enough on Sunday that she needed her personal physician at her side throughout Sunday morning, but initially tried to claim it was just her overheating due to the heat / humidity (despite it being cool / not humid).
AIUI from recent reports, the doctor is on her staff and goes everywhere with her - and has done for years. Why would someone in anything approaching good health need a personal doctor?
Does the President have a doctor on hand at all times? She probably considers herself as important as the President if that is the case.
Yes, the White House and AF1 have doctors in the entourage, and there's always a couple of ambulances in the motorcade.
Rumour has it that Hillary's quack is a neurologist rather than a GP, which just adds fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists.
Does Obama's doctor stand right next to him when he does a public appearance? That is what struck me. I can completely believe the POTUS or a candidate has medical people following, but a sunday morning outing and your doctor is right at your side the whole time.
No, her doctor was at her side from the moment she arrived, not just after she had a funny turn. That doesn't mean I believe the wilder conspiracy theories, just that the campaign where clearly initially lying. I am going to guess the press pissed off at breaking the unwritten deal in terms of access and been left in the dark for 2hrs probably asked the same question.
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians.
That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No it is not unequivocal. Look I know you are some sort of religious nut about this which is why I no longer bother trying to explain it to you but, no matter how much you go on about consensus, settled science and the precautionary principle, you are still clearly unable to grasp the basic ground rules of the scientific principle. Until you can apply those to the AGW hypothesis you are a very long way away from 'unequivocal'.
It is you who appears to be blind to the scientific realities.
Looking at the fundamental question: How can the Earth be a degree hotter now than it was a century ago, given that the sun's output has remained pretty constant and the Earth's orbit hasn't changed?
The only remotely plausible answer to this is that the Earth's temperature is responding to the change in its emissivity resulting from the extra CO2 building up in its atmosphere as a result of human activity.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
Itthe difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
Thank you... I really dislike the way climate change is a polarized debate full of agendas on both sides. I would be a little less skeptical of those giving us the information if I didnt see and read the hyperbole of the consequences.
I suppose a message of "we are experiencing a mild but clear trend of warming, over the next century we are likely to see an increase of maybe a degree, we are not sure of the impact, we believe that we might lose some areas to agriculture but open up others. We still believe that there are anthropogenic reasons that contribute to this trend, we are not entirely sure the part we are playing. We think that weather patterns might become more unpredictable, but we dont really have any evidence.
The reality is there are so many unknowns, we cant explain away the gains in polar ice of the last four years which followed a trend of loss. Nor can we explain why temperatures stayed stable for fifteen years despite a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We are working on it, it would be wise to try and contain the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere because the evidence currently suggests that any further increases could exacerbate the existing trends".
But we dont, we get the "we're all doomed" "end climate chaos now" etc.
I'm sure human beings have had an impact on the climate. I'm unconvinced that it's a major threat to the world.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Middle East is already damn near uninhabitable in the summer!! Was a cool 42 C today, so slowly getting better. They would have spent the oil money on inventing air conditioning if it wasn't already around.
Is that unusually hot? I can remember in the 1990s the steering wheels of cars not parked under a sunscreen buckling because of the heat. We just knew it was feckin' hot and didn't worry about the temperatures. So I am not sure if 42 is atypical.
No, her doctor was at her side from the moment she arrived, not just after she had a funny turn. That doesn't mean I believe the wilder conspiracy theories, just that the campaign where clearly initially lying. I am going to guess the press pissed off at breaking the unwritten deal in terms of access and been left in the dark for 2hrs probably asked the same question.
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians. That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No it is not unequivocal. Look I know you are some sort of religious nut about this which is why I no longer bother trying to explain it to you but, no matter how much you go on about consensus, settled science and the precautionary principle, you are still clearly unable to grasp the basic ground rules of the scientific principle. Until you can apply those to the AGW hypothesis you are a very long way away from 'unequivocal'.
AGW comments are akin to those of people who (used to) argue that smoking didn't really damage health. Once the balance of probabilities suggests that we are causing it then if you wait until you have unequivocal data then another x-million people die from that failure to act. You don't wait, you act. I'm an engineer, I don't wait for things to break before I fix them and I look for solutions once I realise there is a problem.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
I think RCS will point out to you that fossil fuel reserves is no longer an issue giving us about 200 years to sort electricity storage technology.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
If you really think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some massive international conspiracy of scientists, then you are, quite frankly, nuts.
Nuts: Thats what they called people who said Hillary Clinton was ill until yesterday.
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Middle East is already damn near uninhabitable in the summer!! Was a cool 42 C today, so slowly getting better. They would have spent the oil money on inventing air conditioning if it wasn't already around.
Is that unusually hot? I can remember in the 1990s the steering wheels of cars not parked under a sunscreen buckling because of the heat. We just knew it was feckin' hot and didn't worry about the temperatures. So I am not sure if 42 is atypical.
42 is not unusual in the middle east or in most spanish inland cities in the summer months.
Though I expect by 2061, a lot of white Europeans and people of mixed race will see themselves as White British.
A proportionally huge african population in the East End in Elizabethan times vanished by the twentieth century because with mixed marriages their genes became diluted and the climate also assisted. The same is happening rapidly now (excepting one particular religious group who dont tend to intermarry)
Lovely lib-dem type graph. Anomaly is about 1 1/4C in 135 years.
For the non science person, what does that mean? Sometimes its difficult to tell if the wool is being pullled over our eyes. I notice that the CRU of UEA is involved in the formation of this data.
It means sod all. Climate changes all the time.
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
Kippers on Brexit: "A little short term pain is fine, think about the long term, stop worrying"
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
The massive drop in the price of batteries, wind and solar power is heading towards a cheap energy revolution. One that may well be a step change in world history, similar to the coal/steam and oil/ic engine ones.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
Middle East is already damn near uninhabitable in the summer!! Was a cool 42 C today, so slowly getting better. They would have spent the oil money on inventing air conditioning if it wasn't already around.
Is that unusually hot? I can remember in the 1990s the steering wheels of cars not parked under a sunscreen buckling because of the heat. We just knew it was feckin' hot and didn't worry about the temperatures. So I am not sure if 42 is atypical.
Seeing only 42 today was a sign that summer is finally finishing. About six weeks back saw 53 on the car display, but it's a black car. It's between 40 and 50 during the day between May and September, with night lows as high as 38 and horribly humid - more than 3 mins outside during a summer's day and one needs a change of shirt. Dogs get walked at 5am and 9pm, followed by showers for both humans and pooches.
Hillary Clinton wouldn't like it here, except for the zero rate of income tax
Poor Hillary, it seems now they have to pretend she has pneumonia for a few days so they had to cancel her California visit after their announcement yesterday.
I've lost track, I thought she didn't do anything, now she's doing too much?
Tim Stanley agrees with me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/the-worst-condition-hillary-clinton-suffers-from-isnt-pneumonia/ "The worst condition Hillary Clinton suffers from isn't pneumonia, it's dishonesty" 'So this story isn’t just about health. It’s about integrity. Mrs Clinton has validated the suspicions of voters who think that she can’t help lying about everything. Is this why, they ask, she won’t talk to the press or allow them to follow her daily activities?'
I know it was quite a number of years ago now, but I wonder how many people who mocked Bob Dole for falling over during the 1996 US presidential campaign are now defending Hillary Clinton for doing pretty much the same thing?
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians. That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No it is not unequivocal. Look I know you are some sort of religious nut about this which is why I no longer bother trying to explain it to you but, no matter how much you go on about consensus, settled science and the precautionary principle, you are still clearly unable to grasp the basic ground rules of the scientific principle. Until you can apply those to the AGW hypothesis you are a very long way away from 'unequivocal'.
AGW comments are akin to those of people who (used to) argue that smoking didn't really damage health. Once the balance of probabilities suggests that we are causing it then if you wait until you have unequivocal data then another x-million people die from that failure to act. You don't wait, you act. I'm an engineer, I don't wait for things to break before I fix them and I look for solutions once I realise there is a problem.
Poor analogy because there was never really an intermediate period of doubt; the evidence went from almost non existent to pretty much conclusive overnight when Doll published. Also poor because Doll had data on tens of thousands of individuals, whereas there is only one earth. If Doll had had exactly one smoker to study (which is the precise analogy) and was reduced to modeling future outcomes on the basis of observed changes in the subject which could plausibly be ascribed to smoking, his results would be a bit less compelling.
The argument is to a great extent unnecessary though because there are compelling reasons to reduce reliance fossil fuels whether one thinks agw is a thing or not.
Given that every single national and international scientific body in the world accepts the reality of AGW, the only way you can rationally deny it is by assuming some sort of huge scientific conspiracy.
No people dont need a conspiracy to go off like a herd in the wrong direction. Its happened enough times before in history
Look at how the experts were all wrong on Brexit and are now mea culpa-ing about a doom laden recession immediately following.
Its a theory, principally backed up by the so called science of computer modelling to forecast doom in future years - so far time has shown the models to be greatly exaggerated.
It has also been latched onto by the left, desperate to find a replacement philosophy justifying the overthrow of capitalism in favour of an authoritarian command economy after the fall of communism.
Only a bell end would expect an entire planet with all its variables to behave like a bell jar where one gas has its quantity increased and all other variables stay the same.
If the scientists said what you suggest, they'd be lying, since the evidence that humans are responsible for virtually all of the temperature rise observed in recent times is almost unequivocal. The IPCC reports are, if anything, watered down by the politicians. That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
No it is not unequivocal. Look I know you are some sort of religious nut about this which is why I no longer bother trying to explain it to you but, no matter how much you go on about consensus, settled science and the precautionary principle, you are still clearly unable to grasp the basic ground rules of the scientific principle. Until you can apply those to the AGW hypothesis you are a very long way away from 'unequivocal'.
AGW comments are akin to those of people who (used to) argue that smoking didn't really damage health. Once the balance of probabilities suggests that we are causing it then if you wait until you have unequivocal data then another x-million people die from that failure to act. You don't wait, you act. I'm an engineer, I don't wait for things to break before I fix them and I look for solutions once I realise there is a problem.
I have a theory that 'expertise' founders upon matters that are simply too complex, with too many moving parts, for one person to comprehend fully. As an engineer, I'm sure you're a dab hand at dismantling a washing machine and re-assembling it, but I'm afraid I don't set any more store by your views on AGW than those of a greengrocer.
By the same token, I'd trust a surgeon to do keyhole on my knee, but not necessarily a doctor to tell me what's wrong with my body and what to do about it. Too much going on; too many different moving parts. It's really just guesswork.
The U.S. will be white minority by then. However in many Latin America countries, white population close to 50%, Canada, most of Oceania now white majority which they were not originally. Look at the person not the race
I know it was quite a number of years ago now, but I wonder how many people who mocked Bob Dole for falling over during the 1996 US presidential campaign are now defending Hillary Clinton for doing pretty much the same thing?
Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, is having fun on Twitter comparing the media sh!tstorm her father received from the media about his health when running for office, compared to the softsoaping Hillary is getting from certain corners of the press today.
Comments
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-06-24/41141/
EDIT: Actually, not a bad thing. I know of BBC Executives who, when ever anything negative was pointed out, or when people tried to get a wider breadth of programming commissioned, would puff out their chests and palm out, would silence the comment "But we have Bake Off...." That seemed to be the furthest horizon they could survey.
It's only a lie if he hasn't changed his mind.
Surely the craze for cooking/dressmaking/whatever talent shows is running its course?
The issue is (1) why and (2) so long as india and china increase their co2 output by more than our entire output per year, all our heairshirting is (a) futile and (b) just undermines our international competitiveness compared with China.
Liberals want us to bankrupt ourselves by setting an example because they think if we do then China etc will be so embarrassed that they will do the same.
The Y-Axis is the change from this position - so an increase in the value shows that the temperature has been going up.
HOWEVER! The change in temperature is NOT from -3 to +2 (the Y-axis) but the difference between the lowest and highest points at any particular month - which I estimated to be about 1 1/4C. The time period is given at the top-left and it appears to start in 1880.
Add in a few scary colours to accentuate the difference and you get an alarming (lib-dem) graph. NASA should be hung, drawn and quartered for trying to be so misleading.
(I hasten to add that I do believe in climate change and that temperatures have increased over the last century. - although it is impossible to know from the data whether 1880 was actually the coldest or not - and what proportion of the climate change is anthropogenic)
There's a HELL of a lot to criticise Hillary for when it comes to honesty and transparency, but to me it seems quite understandable to not be totally open about short-term illnesses, whereas trying to hide emails sent on official government business from any scrutiny is not reasonable.
The data is as reliable as the person doing the adjusting. The adjusting will inevitably be driven by current theories and others might allege all sorts of other things.
I am not sure what his legacy will be. I see him as a latter day Stanley Baldwin. Not someone who will loom large in history, apart from his one legacy that matters. Rather like Tony Blair, he made his party electable again, brought them back to the top table, and then they spurned him. I don't just mean over Brexit, but rather the enirety of his legacy. Back to being the Nasty Party it is.
I could call you ill for months safe in the knowledge that one day you will be and say LOOK TOLD YOU SO
The argument as you say is whether humans are modulating that change either by increasing it or damping it.
if I was an interviewer (voter) for a position, I would find it annoying if the candidate failed to disclose something that could affect his performance of the job.
All Mrs Clinton had to do, on Friday, was to announce that she had picked up an infection and been advised to take a few days rest. This would have been less damaging as it turns out than trying to bull it through and been caught out. The Democrats gambled - and lost.
"We have the support of cops… carpenters and welders," he noted. "These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans that Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American."
"She spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country," he said. "She spoke with contempt for the people who follow the rules, pay their taxes and scratch out a living for their family."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-unloads-on-clinton-she-divided-people-as-though-they-were-objects/article/2601550?custom_click=rss
Or is it just bull?
Kippers on renewable energy: "Who cares about 20 years down the line, let's keep blasting through our fossil fuel reserves and damn the long term"
That kind of thing.
So where does that leave a potential commander in chief who does the same?
Hillary is still stuck at 1 point above her all time low while she picked 5 points with democrats.
Trump is up only 2 points bellow his all time high, while picking none from republicans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
Seems the Basket of Deplorables speech rallied Democrats around Hillary at the expense of Independents and moderate Republicans who switched to Trump.
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/775103561273344000
Poor Hillary, it seems now they have to pretend she has pneumonia for a few days so they had to cancel her California visit after their announcement yesterday.
I will be quite happy to use solar when it is viable. It is the process of taxing fossil fuels to make it seem cheaper, putting up our energy costs while the likes of china do no such thing and undercut us that I object to.
Brexit is an investment that might give some short term pain for a long term prosperity.
Greenism is a way of making liberals feel good about ruining our prosperity.
How would @TheFix and the media have reacted in '08 if my father had his lifeless body thrown into a van and lost a shoe on camera?
The best example of this is our two great wartime leaders Churchill and Roosevelt. If we had had the same minute examination of our their health that we have our prospective leaders today they would never have got within a thousand miles of high office.
Basically if Clinton is able to do the job she does it until such times as she cannot. At that point the VP takes over - which is kind of what they are there for.
I suppose a message of "we are experiencing a mild but clear trend of warming, over the next century we are likely to see an increase of maybe a degree, we are not sure of the impact, we believe that we might lose some areas to agriculture but open up others. We still believe that there are anthropogenic reasons that contribute to this trend, we are not entirely sure the part we are playing. We think that weather patterns might become more unpredictable, but we dont really have any evidence.
The reality is there are so many unknowns, we cant explain away the gains in polar ice of the last four years which followed a trend of loss. Nor can we explain why temperatures stayed stable for fifteen years despite a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We are working on it, it would be wise to try and contain the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere because the evidence currently suggests that any further increases could exacerbate the existing trends".
But we dont, we get the "we're all doomed" "end climate chaos now" etc.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/775359414245158912
The CIA could be playing it both ways now, Y0kel might not be happy.
The implications of the oil and gas price staying low, not just because of a temporary glut, because a major drop in demand take some thinking about.
With a bit of improved flood defence and dyke building, the UK, Canada and Russia could become better places to live; the Middle East, the Sahel and Bangladesh uninhabitable.
The problem here is that both sides played politics about it, and of course the cover-up and the constant lying from the Clinton camp that fuels conspiracy theories.
So in the end no one knows for sure, and people get anxious about it.
He probably thinks that AGW exists (and even if it didn't, some steps to combat it like developing solar are good ideas in their own right) but that the evidence for it is misunderstood and overstated by militantly self-righteous thickoes who have no idea how science works.
That said, some "activists" do go totally over the top with their language, which isn't helpful.
Rumour has it that Hillary's quack is a neurologist rather than a GP, which just adds fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists.
But this year I have spotted it, and it makes me really concerned that the change is big enough and rapid enough this year for me to spot it.
And it's not only that temperatures suddenly shifted a degree this year but that the rate of CO2 increase also shifted upwards suddenly this year:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Then is when it is clear the original story of unexpected overheating was BS and clearly she was ill.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/775386121081675776
Looking at the fundamental question: How can the Earth be a degree hotter now than it was a century ago, given that the sun's output has remained pretty constant and the Earth's orbit hasn't changed?
The only remotely plausible answer to this is that the Earth's temperature is responding to the change in its emissivity resulting from the extra CO2 building up in its atmosphere as a result of human activity.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/cameron-resigns-breaks-word-trashes-reputation/
https://twitter.com/Npton_Labour/status/775353960379154432
Hillary Clinton wouldn't like it here, except for the zero rate of income tax
Aaron Blake
Trump's response to Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment was a very good one https://t.co/ap1KbaLSjG https://t.co/o9ORkp576P
They've now added the 9/4 - 9/10 sample and the 9/5 - 9/11.
Numbers look about right to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/the-worst-condition-hillary-clinton-suffers-from-isnt-pneumonia/
"The worst condition Hillary Clinton suffers from isn't pneumonia, it's dishonesty"
'So this story isn’t just about health. It’s about integrity. Mrs Clinton has validated the suspicions of voters who think that she can’t help lying about everything. Is this why, they ask, she won’t talk to the press or allow them to follow her daily activities?'
The argument is to a great extent unnecessary though because there are compelling reasons to reduce reliance fossil fuels whether one thinks agw is a thing or not.
Look at how the experts were all wrong on Brexit and are now mea culpa-ing about a doom laden recession immediately following.
Its a theory, principally backed up by the so called science of computer modelling to forecast doom in future years - so far time has shown the models to be greatly exaggerated.
It has also been latched onto by the left, desperate to find a replacement philosophy justifying the overthrow of capitalism in favour of an authoritarian command economy after the fall of communism.
Only a bell end would expect an entire planet with all its variables to behave like a bell jar where one gas has its quantity increased and all other variables stay the same.
Aaron Blake
Ted Strickland, who didn't get memo, says Kaine ready to be prez "if that ever became necessary." https://t.co/JhN5se3q6t
By the same token, I'd trust a surgeon to do keyhole on my knee, but not necessarily a doctor to tell me what's wrong with my body and what to do about it. Too much going on; too many different moving parts. It's really just guesswork.
For years the BBC has believed that Eurosceptics are racists.