You're telling me your school wasn't just really old, but it was a private one too?
Yes and what is the problem with that?
A problem? Isn't that kind of education normally viewed as a privilege? (The school part, I mean.)
How did you end up muddling me and HYUFD????
I apologise. I had to edit out most of the message history because my reply was over-length. There was evidently a message of yours at the top, which I had started to reply to, before thinking better of it
I thought we were getting an Australian style points system. Perhaps we are and this is it.
Because I sense the detail is secondary to the title. So long as the new policy is called that, it will get the wholehearted approval of the target audience. It sounds clever - 'points' and 'system' - and it sounds anglo/white and not European and rather exclusive since the destination is a long way away - 'Australian style'.
So, perfect, as demonstrated time and again in focus groups up and down the country. 'Australian style points system' - just the phrase - is enough to get the room purring.
Once again The Hollowmen turns out to have been a documentary, not satire.
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Similarly, many scientists who are critical of phrenology are experts in other fields. If you want the truth about phrenology, ask a phrenologist.
(Which is not say climate change isn't real - it is simply to point out that there were once people who were considered experts in phrenology.)
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Like many other underfunded sectors, the problem in public perception is that most people expect not to have to have contact with it, and have a low opinion of many of those who do (suspects in this case, asylum-seekers, homeless people, people on benefits in others). When they then do come in contact, they ae generally horrified.
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Similarly, many scientists who are critical of phrenology are experts in other fields. If you want the truth about phrenology, ask a phrenologist.
(Which is not say climate change isn't real - it is simply to point out that there were once people who were considered experts in phrenology.)
Presumably you think that had some relevance to what I wrote?
FTR - me and malky have bet a tenner on #indyref2 - him for independence, me for no.
Nobody likes welchers on this site do they?
I will hunt you down Briskin PS: I will apply for my free bus pass , suffer mixing with the plebs, and get up there for nothing so still worth it for a fat tenner
I do not buy the idea that 'non violent' crime should carry a lesser punishment.
Con somebody out of all their money, for example, and you destroy their spirit. Their relationships are often terminally damaged. You take their identity, their soul. You trash their life, in short.
FTR - me and malky have bet a tenner on #indyref2 - him for independence, me for no.
Nobody likes welchers on this site do they?
I will hunt you down Briskin PS: I will apply for my free bus pass , suffer mixing with the plebs, and get up there for nothing so still worth it for a fat tenner
You almost make it sound like fun - but I ain't a welcher
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Similarly, many scientists who are critical of phrenology are experts in other fields. If you want the truth about phrenology, ask a phrenologist.
(Which is not say climate change isn't real - it is simply to point out that there were once people who were considered experts in phrenology.)
Presumably you think that had some relevance to what I wrote?
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
That’s because they understand the dependence of the theory (and especially forcing) on modelling populated by very patchy and limited data.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
I do not buy the idea that 'non violent' crime should carry a lesser punishment.
Con somebody out of all their money, for example, and you destroy their spirit. Their relationships are often terminally damaged. You take their identity, their soul. You trash their life, in short.
"For 6 years from 2012 to 2018, no lawyer was deemed worthy to be Minister of Justice, the choice instead falling on Chris Grayling and Liz Truss"
Well, gosh!
Have you ever looked at the Ministers for Science?
Rummaging through the appointments of the Labour & Tory & Coalition even SNP Govts, I do not think there has EVER been a Minister for Science who has any training in science.
Training in Modern History or PPE or Politics or Sociology, yes.
Training in Science, no.
In Wales, we have Dim Kirsty as Minister for Science. She has a degree in American Studies. In Scotland, Richard Lochhead has a degree in politics. In England, Jo Johnson has a degree in Modern History.
Have we many MP's with science degrees? I recall one Margaret Thatcher, but she gave up science to become a barrister.
I guess that is the point.
The MPs are grossly unrepresentative. Of course, this is often discussed in terms of gender or ethnicity, but there are also many other & equally important ways that the MPs are grossly unrepresentative.
Lawyers & barristers in general are over-represented in Parliament, so I am not hugely sympathetic to Cyclefree's grumble.
A Minister for Science could be in the House of Lords, rather than Commons, and so parties could appoint trained scientists by ennobling them.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change should also be a trained scientist.
Baron (Peter) Lilley has a degree in physics.
So two of the few politicians on record as being sceptical of the the "official line" on climate change and energy policy are scientists... (Stringer & Lilley) Small sample admittedly!
Science covers a multitude of subjects, just having a degree in physics doesn't make you an expert in Climate Change.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Similarly, many scientists who are critical of phrenology are experts in other fields. If you want the truth about phrenology, ask a phrenologist.
(Which is not say climate change isn't real - it is simply to point out that there were once people who were considered experts in phrenology.)
Presumably you think that had some relevance to what I wrote?
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Like many other underfunded sectors, the problem in public perception is that most people expect not to have to have contact with it, and have a low opinion of many of those who do (suspects in this case, asylum-seekers, homeless people, people on benefits in others). When they then do come in contact, they ae generally horrified.
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
Some years ago, a report said that a large proportion of women prisoners were convicted of shoplifting or non-payment of TV licences. When they went to prison their kids (if they were single mums) went into care. The costs for something like TV licences massively outweighed the "income"
Our new Home Secretary will probably have them transported to the colonies....
FTR - me and malky have bet a tenner on #indyref2 - him for independence, me for no.
Nobody likes welchers on this site do they?
I will hunt you down Briskin PS: I will apply for my free bus pass , suffer mixing with the plebs, and get up there for nothing so still worth it for a fat tenner
You almost make it sound like fun - but I ain't a welcher
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Like many other underfunded sectors, the problem in public perception is that most people expect not to have to have contact with it, and have a low opinion of many of those who do (suspects in this case, asylum-seekers, homeless people, people on benefits in others). When they then do come in contact, they ae generally horrified.
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
Yes - it does cost. But it is a genuine investment in people.
I did some law centre volunteering when I started studying law. Most of the young male (mostly teenage) defendants I came into contact with were not evil. They had made bad choices. But they also often came from broken families, care homes, had poor schooling and no tough but loving authority figures to steer them as they grew up. I am not at all sentimental. People make moral choices and need to accept the consequences of their actions. But I often felt an element of “There but for the grace of God (or more accurately, my parents) go I”.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has happened is this: a lot of Big Scientists think climate change might be a thing, and also realise that stating the case with the proper degree of uncertainty (and no prediction is ever certain, let alone those about the future behaviour of a system as highly chaotic and complex as the climate) they wouldn't get the time of day from any politician. So they present a cartoon version of the possible facts because nothing else will persuade people like Donald Trump, and the people who vote for Donald Trump, to believe them or give them money. (I do not say that Trump does in fact believe them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
I do not buy the idea that 'non violent' crime should carry a lesser punishment.
Con somebody out of all their money, for example, and you destroy their spirit. Their relationships are often terminally damaged. You take their identity, their soul. You trash their life, in short.
Worse than a good slapping.
I couldn't agree more.
Taking someone's life savings (especially later in life) is a crime that is unlikely to be recovered from.
Far far worse than 'physical' crimes that carry a much longer tariff...often based on virtue signalling rather than impact.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has happened is this: a lot of Big Scientists think climate change might be a thing, and also realise that stating the case with the proper degree of uncertainty (and no prediction is ever certain, let alone those about the future behaviour of a system as highly chaotic and complex as the climate) they wouldn't get the time of day from any politician. So they present a cartoon version of the possible facts because nothing else will persuade people like Donald Trump, and the people who vote for Donald Trump, to believe them or give them money. (I do not say that Trump does in fact believe them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
What about reverse-phrenology? If a certain lump on the skull denotes character then anyone lacking that lump can have it installed by getting whacked with a hammer in strategic spots.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
That’s because they understand the dependence of the theory (and especially forcing) on modelling populated by very patchy and limited data.
I would agree with that.
The case for the existence of some anthropogenic global warming is very strong.
But the detailed predictions of climate scientists can still be quite wrong.
This is because they depend on complex "multi-physics" codes that include many different interacting processes, some of which are not quantitatively understood from first principles and must be parametrized, semi-empirically.
For example, they need to describe processes, such as the formation of clouds and precipitation, or behaviour of radiation fields in multi-phase media, that are not well understood and cannot be calculated from basic physical laws.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
O/T Does anyone know where to find the 'listen again' on talksport - want to listen to the spurs commentary yesterday and I'm jiggered if I can find it on their abysmal website.... is it even there?
Just as well they didn't cover Dave's 2015 glorious night as I'd never have been able to re-listen to it....
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
That’s because they understand the dependence of the theory (and especially forcing) on modelling populated by very patchy and limited data.
I would agree with that.
The case for the existence of some anthropogenic global warming is very strong.
But the detailed predictions of climate scientists can still be quite wrong.
This is because they depend on complex "multi-physics" codes that include many different interacting processes, some of which are not quantitatively understood from first principles and must be parametrized, semi-empirically.
For example, they need to describe processes, such as the formation of clouds and precipitation, or behaviour of radiation fields in multi-phase media, that are not well understood and cannot be calculated from basic physical laws.
The world is a pretty old planet. How far back in the world's history does "climate" go?
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has happened is this: a lot of Big Scientists think climate change might be a thing, and also realise that stating the case with the proper degree of uncertainty (and no prediction is ever certain, let alone those about the future behaviour of a system as highly chaotic and complex as the climate) they wouldn't get the time of day from any politician. So they present a cartoon version of the possible facts because nothing else will persuade people like Donald Trump, and the people who vote for Donald Trump, to believe them or give them money. (I do not say that Trump does in fact believe them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
What about them? Do you put them in the opposite scale to the 97% and see if they shift the balance?
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer. The evidence from NOAA seems pretty uncontravertible.
My point is that the statement "xx% of climate scientists" is not one that carries much weight with me. Simply, show me the data, not a survey of a practioners who have a vested interest in their subject being true.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has happened is this: a lot of Big Scientists think climate change might be a thing, and also realise that stating the case with the proper degree of uncertainty (and no prediction is ever certain, let alone those about the future behaviour of a system as highly chaotic and complex as the climate) they wouldn't get the time of day from any politician. So they present a cartoon version of the possible facts because nothing else will persuade people like Donald Trump, and the people who vote for Donald Trump, to believe them or give them money. (I do not say that Trump does in fact believe them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
What about them? Do you put them in the opposite scale to the 97% and see if they shift the balance?
Did you read alchemy?
I will just point out that I said nothing whatsoever about 97%. That's something that is significant to you for some reason!
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer. The evidence from NOAA seems pretty uncontravertible.
Incontrovertible!
PS. You believe the earth is getting warmer? You mean like a religion or cult?
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Like many other underfunded sectors, the problem in public perception is that most people expect not to have to have contact with it, and have a low opinion of many of those who do (suspects in this case, asylum-seekers, homeless people, people on benefits in others). When they then do come in contact, they ae generally horrified.
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
Some years ago, a report said that a large proportion of women prisoners were convicted of shoplifting or non-payment of TV licences. When they went to prison their kids (if they were single mums) went into care. The costs for something like TV licences massively outweighed the "income"
Our new Home Secretary will probably have them transported to the colonies....
Who will, given their current requirements, transport them straight back again!
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer. The evidence from NOAA seems pretty uncontravertible.
My point is that the statement "xx% of climate scientists" is not one that carries much weight with me. Simply, show me the data, not a survey of a practioners who have a vested interest in their subject being true.
Thank you for explaining your thinking.
It is curious that you feel the need to suggest I wish to show you a survey, when I've mentioned no such thing. That seems to be something that is signficant to you, like Ishmael_Z.
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Like many other underfunded sectors, the problem in public perception is that most people expect not to have to have contact with it, and have a low opinion of many of those who do (suspects in this case, asylum-seekers, homeless people, people on benefits in others). When they then do come in contact, they ae generally horrified.
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
Some years ago, a report said that a large proportion of women prisoners were convicted of shoplifting or non-payment of TV licences. When they went to prison their kids (if they were single mums) went into care. The costs for something like TV licences massively outweighed the "income"
Our new Home Secretary will probably have them transported to the colonies....
Who will, given their current requirements, transport them straight back again!
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
Close, but parliament has exacting standards!
You have to show that you're worth 79 grand plus expenses. Can the new formula be applied retrospectively? We could bin most of the current crop!
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer. The evidence from NOAA seems pretty uncontravertible.
Incontrovertible!
PS. You believe the earth is getting warmer? You mean like a religion or cult?
The Earth was notably warmer when the dinosaurs were in charge. Not many of them about these days.....
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Lot of touchy people on here nowadays Chris.
TBF diehard remainer Chris was trying to engage in argument. We all saw it.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has ha[SNIP]them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Lot of touchy people on here nowadays Chris.
TBF diehard remainer Chris was trying to engage in argument. We all saw it.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has ha[SNIP]them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
Now that I realise there are people here who went to centuries-old private schools _and_ Russell Group universities, I'm a reformed character. I'm going to show proper respect to my betters from now on ...
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
Economics isn't a science.
[ducks]
When I was studying economics at the OU under the social sciences faculty - I, with hilarious consequences applied to the LSE (where it's apparently a BSc)
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
“If the Scottish government requested that they hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in the next 5 years, do you think the UK Government should accept or refuse that request?” (net allow)
London +27 Scotland +12 South of England +10 N Ireland +7 Wales +2 Midlands +2 North of England +1
John McDonnell seems to be truly in tune with public opinion on this issue.
Astonishing that more London voters for allowing indyref2 than Scottish voters, shows how much diehard Remainers think breaking up the Union should be used to punish Leavers
But every part of the UK favours allowing indyref2. Does that mean the UK is now majority 'diehard Remainers'?
It means the majority in England are for accepting that if parts of the UK want away, so be it. Their call. I don't see any appetite anywhere for keeping the union together regardless of what the component countries want.
England and Wales (I'm assuming Wales would stay, albeit with a greater degree of autonomy) would be a whole lot easier for Westminster to govern in the twenty first century than the current UK. But I would not be surprised if Ireland had real stresses currently not seen through the yearning in the south for a united island. And Scotland has already demonstrated that it does not have answers to some fundamental problems. If you think Brexit is tough - that is just dismantling a trading arrangement. Independence will be far more complex. We can only hope that the two sides are a helluvalot more grown up than the two sides arguing over Brexit.
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
I believe that the earth is getting warmer. The evidence from NOAA seems pretty uncontravertible.
Incontrovertible!
PS. You believe the earth is getting warmer? You mean like a religion or cult?
The Earth was notably warmer when the dinosaurs were in charge. Not many of them about these days.....
(One for the syllogists among us)
The place is swarming with the little buggers, they have just been rebadged. KFC is actually Kentucky Fried Dinosaur.
Butt if the syllogism you are looking for says that if it gets warm enough T Rexes will be roaming the streets, bring it on!
Look, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with me. My point is that practioners of a subject are unlikely to be sceptical of it. Simply, it's in one's financial interest to find evidence that a chosen field is - how to put this - a good one, rather than a bad one.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you're getting at. Because you followed up your reference to phrenology with a statement that you weren't saying climate change wasn't real.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
I have an old friend who spent his working life lecturing upon various religious aspects of the Old Testament. I once asked him what careers his students finally entered. He said that their ability to closely argue points of detail meant that they often ended up in marketing! Make of that what you will!
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Lot of touchy people on here nowadays Chris.
TBF diehard remainer Chris was trying to engage in argument. We all saw it.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has ha[SNIP]them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
Now that I realise there are people here who went to centuries-old private schools _and_ Russell Group universities, I'm a reformed character. I'm going to show proper respect to my betters from now on ...
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Lot of touchy people on here nowadays Chris.
TBF diehard remainer Chris was trying to engage in argument. We all saw it.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has ha[SNIP]them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
Now that I realise there are people here who went to centuries-old private schools _and_ Russell Group universities, I'm a reformed character. I'm going to show proper respect to my betters from now on ...
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
Thanks to Cyclefree for another withering piece on the state of affairs. I was reasonably involved in this as an MP - toured the local prison, had a detailed briefing on another, and help write the Justice Select Committee paper on the relative costs and benefits of different kinds of investment in the justice system, based on international experien ce - for what it's worth the thing I'm most proud of doing in my 13 years in the Commons.
Simulating a Tory of the old-fashioned "spend wisely" kind for a moment (before the current team adopted mock-Keynesian economics), which of the problems that Cyclefree identifies would she (or others) give priority to allocating money for? I appreciate that some just need changes in attitude, but others really require substantial sums. Would there be anything we should give up on (e.g. never imprison anyone for less than a year)?
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Please don't give up on short sentences.
I couldn't bear it if everyone on PB starting writing in the style of Henry James. e.g from The Golden Bowl (plucked at random) "This establishment, mysterious and almost anonymous, the windows of which, at hours of highest pressure, never seemed, for starers and wonderers, perceptibly to glow, must in fact have been during certain years the scene of an unprecedented, a miraculous white-heat, the receipt for producing which it was practically felt that the master of the forge could not have communicated even with the best intentions." Unreadable.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
The point is simple, lucidly put, easily understood, and not hostile to the idea that AGW is happening. If you don't understand it, I don't think this is an argument you should be engaging in.
I haven't tried to engage you in an argument, and I certainly have no wish to do so.
Lot of touchy people on here nowadays Chris.
TBF diehard remainer Chris was trying to engage in argument. We all saw it.
Indeed - it's noticeable that most of the professional scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, are specialists in other areas of science.
Lots of people like science to be done by scientific proof, not by doing a head count and then weighting it by expertise.
What has ha[SNIP]them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
And then of course there are the climate change sceptics who post on the Internet.
Now that I realise there are people here who went to centuries-old private schools _and_ Russell Group universities, I'm a reformed character. I'm going to show proper respect to my betters from now on ...
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
Sorry to hear you had to drop out.
It got too difficult!! I had been in jobs for the courses I'd passed and wasn't for my Level 3 one - so perhaps that was a factor.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
I'm sad to hear that. OU was one of the best things the UK ever did, and I am appalled that the fees are so large these days: they should be much, much cheaper.
Thanks to Cyclefree for another withering piece on the state of affairs. I was reasonably involved in this as an MP - toured the local prison, had a detailed briefing on another, and help write the Justice Select Committee paper on the relative costs and benefits of different kinds of investment in the justice system, based on international experien ce - for what it's worth the thing I'm most proud of doing in my 13 years in the Commons.
Simulating a Tory of the old-fashioned "spend wisely" kind for a moment (before the current team adopted mock-Keynesian economics), which of the problems that Cyclefree identifies would she (or others) give priority to allocating money for? I appreciate that some just need changes in attitude, but others really require substantial sums. Would there be anything we should give up on (e.g. never imprison anyone for less than a year)?
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Please don't give up on short sentences.
I couldn't bear it if everyone on PB starting writing in the style of Henry James. e.g from The Golden Bowl (plucked at random) "This establishment, mysterious and almost anonymous, the windows of which, at hours of highest pressure, never seemed, for starers and wonderers, perceptibly to glow, must in fact have been during certain years the scene of an unprecedented, a miraculous white-heat, the receipt for producing which it was practically felt that the master of the forge could not have communicated even with the best intentions." Unreadable.
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
I'm sad to hear that. OU was one of the best things the UK ever did, and I am appalled that the fees are so large these days: they should be much, much cheaper.
Tory hostility to education for people who want to better themselves.
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
I'm sad to hear that. OU was one of the best things the UK ever did, and I am appalled that the fees are so large these days: they should be much, much cheaper.
Agree, agree, agree. I wouldn't have embarked on my OU degree at today's fee levels.
I would like to do a philosophy MA but the fees are simply too much to justify the outlay.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
An understanding of hubris would have done a few of our bankers no end of good.
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
I'm sad to hear that. OU was one of the best things the UK ever did, and I am appalled that the fees are so large these days: they should be much, much cheaper.
Tory hostility to education for people who want to better themselves.
I thought they were okay prices when I was studying in England in the naughties. I'm back in Scotland now - so "Free Uni"
I dropped out of OU at level 3 (that will make sense to OU people) because it got too hard so you can still bully me if you want.
I'm sad to hear that. OU was one of the best things the UK ever did, and I am appalled that the fees are so large these days: they should be much, much cheaper.
Tory hostility to education for people who want to better themselves.
The destruction of adult education would be the first thing I reverse if I could. Retraining people is going to become more and more critical as we automate more and the current system is not fit for purpose.
Thanks to Cyclefree for another withering piece on the state of affairs. I was reasonably involved in this as an MP - toured the local prison, had a detailed briefing on another, and help write the Justice Select Committee paper on the relative costs and benefits of different kinds of investment in the justice system, based on international experien ce - for what it's worth the thing I'm most proud of doing in my 13 years in the Commons.
Simulating a Tory of the old-fashioned "spend wisely" kind for a moment (before the current team adopted mock-Keynesian economics), which of the problems that Cyclefree identifies would she (or others) give priority to allocating money for? I appreciate that some just need changes in attitude, but others really require substantial sums. Would there be anything we should give up on (e.g. never imprison anyone for less than a year)?
IMO short sentences are pointless. So I would give up on those. There was some good work on this being done by David Gauke, before he resigned. I would also do more in the rehabilitation field: so many offenders come from care homes, are illiterate etc. Spending money teaching them skills is a worthwhile investment.
There is much more scope for efficiencies in the court process, which would also help. But if you want a proper justice system, you need to pay for it. If you get caught up in the criminal system, you are effectively dependant on the kindness of others. It is grotesque and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
And thanks for the Select Committee report. I will read it with interest.
Please don't give up on short sentences.
I couldn't bear it if everyone on PB starting writing in the style of Henry James. e.g from The Golden Bowl (plucked at random) "This establishment, mysterious and almost anonymous, the windows of which, at hours of highest pressure, never seemed, for starers and wonderers, perceptibly to glow, must in fact have been during certain years the scene of an unprecedented, a miraculous white-heat, the receipt for producing which it was practically felt that the master of the forge could not have communicated even with the best intentions." Unreadable.
Hemingway can be equally unbearable, in his own way.
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
First type is fine. Second type is softhead.
The real problem is it often goes beyond the second, and becomes a conspiracy theory about science.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
An understanding of hubris would have done a few of our bankers no end of good.
Hubris hardly ever means hubris in that sense. The basic meaning of the word is male-on-female sexual violence. Pussy-grabbing in other words.
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
First type is fine. Second type is softhead.
The real problem is it often goes beyond the second, and becomes a conspiracy theory about science.
The tragedy is, I think you genuinely mean that. You believe that demanding proof of AGW is like demanding proof that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, or that terrorists blew up the twin towers.
Blair's "send everyone to university" nonsense has a lot to answer for.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
An understanding of hubris would have done a few of our bankers no end of good.
Hubris hardly ever means hubris in that sense. The basic meaning of the word is male-on-female sexual violence. Pussy-grabbing in other words.
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
First type is fine. Second type is softhead.
The real problem is it often goes beyond the second, and becomes a conspiracy theory about science.
The tragedy is, I think you genuinely mean that. You believe that demanding proof of AGW is like demanding proof that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, or that terrorists blew up the twin towers.
Blair's "send everyone to university" nonsense has a lot to answer for.
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
An understanding of hubris would have done a few of our bankers no end of good.
Hubris hardly ever means hubris in that sense. The basic meaning of the word is male-on-female sexual violence. Pussy-grabbing in other words.
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
First type is fine. Second type is softhead.
The real problem is it often goes beyond the second, and becomes a conspiracy theory about science.
The tragedy is, I think you genuinely mean that. You believe that demanding proof of AGW is like demanding proof that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, or that terrorists blew up the twin towers.
Blair's "send everyone to university" nonsense has a lot to answer for.
It was 50pc to university. A nice symmetrical system - one half of the population plebs - the rest gets an education; and a chance to join the illustrious middle class.
I couldn't bear it if everyone on PB starting writing in the style of Henry James. e.g from The Golden Bowl (plucked at random) "This establishment, mysterious and almost anonymous, the windows of which, at hours of highest pressure, never seemed, for starers and wonderers, perceptibly to glow, must in fact have been during certain years the scene of an unprecedented, a miraculous white-heat, the receipt for producing which it was practically felt that the master of the forge could not have communicated even with the best intentions." Unreadable.
That does need the treatment.
"From the look of the place you would never guess the shit that had gone down there." ??
I think as a compromise we should stipulate that all MPs should have a degree in a STEM subject together with a degree in PPE.
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
My brother studied Engineering, Economics and Management - a joint discipline between the Engineering and PPE faculties. Required physics, chemistry and maths a-levels.
Would that qualify?
If we are taliking about such things ....
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
Some would say that the ancient Greek philosophers basically nailed everything, and we've just been refining their work ever since.
An understanding of hubris would have done a few of our bankers no end of good.
Hubris hardly ever means hubris in that sense. The basic meaning of the word is male-on-female sexual violence. Pussy-grabbing in other words.
An understanding that hubris, in both senses of the word, was and is wrong would have done most of our bankers no end of good.
This is a very timely article. Fixing the Courts system would costs hundreds of millions, rather than billions, of pounds, so it's certainly achievable.
I think it would cost at least a billion pounds to fix the civil courts. Would the criminal courts be that much cheaper?
The civil courts should be self-financing. The criminal courts cannot be.
Comments
Now where would you find someone to meet that specification?
FTR - me and malky have bet a tenner on #indyref2 - him for independence, me for no.
Nobody likes welchers on this site do they?
(Which is not say climate change isn't real - it is simply to point out that there were once people who were considered experts in phrenology.)
The reoffending rate in Britain is astonishingly high, dwarfing countries like Norway, but we basically warehouse prisoners until they are free to resume criminality, while the Norwegians pester them throughout their sentences to prepare for a law-abiding and reasonably prosperous life on release. Not everyone responds, but apparently most do. But...it costs.
PS: I will apply for my free bus pass , suffer mixing with the plebs, and get up there for nothing so still worth it for a fat tenner
Is it correct to say this?
"Malcolm had a bet with you and I."
Or this?
"Malcolm had a bet with you and me."
I do not buy the idea that 'non violent' crime should carry a lesser punishment.
Con somebody out of all their money, for example, and you destroy their spirit. Their relationships are often terminally damaged. You take their identity, their soul. You trash their life, in short.
Worse than a good slapping.
PS: this
😆
Decided in ungrammatical terms.
(only joking)
Would that qualify?
Our new Home Secretary will probably have them transported to the colonies....
I did some law centre volunteering when I started studying law. Most of the young male (mostly teenage) defendants I came into contact with were not evil. They had made bad choices. But they also often came from broken families, care homes, had poor schooling and no tough but loving authority figures to steer them as they grew up. I am not at all sentimental. People make moral choices and need to accept the consequences of their actions. But I often felt an element of “There but for the grace of God (or more accurately, my parents) go I”.
One thing you don't realise is that most climate scientists aren't qualified to have a view on AGW either: their honest answer would be "search me, squire, I only do variations in mean summer daytime temperatures in and around Norwich in 1450-1475, as measured by willow and alder tree rings." Science is not on the whole a big picture undertaking, and even the biggest big picture thinkers are usually doing it in their spare time - Darwin was a barnacles man, Dawkins does geese.
What has happened is this: a lot of Big Scientists think climate change might be a thing, and also realise that stating the case with the proper degree of uncertainty (and no prediction is ever certain, let alone those about the future behaviour of a system as highly chaotic and complex as the climate) they wouldn't get the time of day from any politician. So they present a cartoon version of the possible facts because nothing else will persuade people like Donald Trump, and the people who vote for Donald Trump, to believe them or give them money. (I do not say that Trump does in fact believe them, but he and those like him are the target audience). They may be right, and they may indeed be saving the world, but they aren't doing science. If you accept any proposition beginning with the words "97% of scientists believe..." then if you have a science degree, you should sue the body which awarded it to you for blatant mis selling.
Taking someone's life savings (especially later in life) is a crime that is unlikely to be recovered from.
Far far worse than 'physical' crimes that carry a much longer tariff...often based on virtue signalling rather than impact.
Phrenologists went round looking for evidence that you could derive behaviour from the shape of the skull.
"Malcolm had a bet with I" is wrong and
"Malcolm had a bet with me" works, so the correct version is:
"Malcolm had a bet with you and me"
Terry Pratchett mentioned it a few times
The case for the existence of some anthropogenic global warming is very strong.
But the detailed predictions of climate scientists can still be quite wrong.
This is because they depend on complex "multi-physics" codes that include many different interacting processes, some of which are not quantitatively understood from first principles and must be parametrized, semi-empirically.
For example, they need to describe processes, such as the formation of clouds and precipitation, or behaviour of radiation fields in multi-phase media, that are not well understood and cannot be calculated from basic physical laws.
I'm just trying to work out what you are saying, if you're not saying that. That you doubt whether it's real, because you don't trust scientists, because they get paid?
PS: or should that have been same as me answered Bev
Just as well they didn't cover Dave's 2015 glorious night as I'd never have been able to re-listen to it....
Did you read alchemy?
My point is that the statement "xx% of climate scientists" is not one that carries much weight with me. Simply, show me the data, not a survey of a practioners who have a vested interest in their subject being true.
PS. You believe the earth is getting warmer? You mean like a religion or cult?
It is curious that you feel the need to suggest I wish to show you a survey, when I've mentioned no such thing. That seems to be something that is signficant to you, like Ishmael_Z.
Our glorious leader is "educated" in Classics. Is it possible to do a less relevant course for a career in the modern world? Being able to quote in Latin or Greek, ideas that are 2000 years old (many of which were plain wrong) is not exactly a sign of brilliance IMO
(One for the syllogists among us)
[ducks]
England and Wales (I'm assuming Wales would stay, albeit with a greater degree of autonomy) would be a whole lot easier for Westminster to govern in the twenty first century than the current UK. But I would not be surprised if Ireland had real stresses currently not seen through the yearning in the south for a united island. And Scotland has already demonstrated that it does not have answers to some fundamental problems. If you think Brexit is tough - that is just dismantling a trading arrangement. Independence will be far more complex. We can only hope that the two sides are a helluvalot more grown up than the two sides arguing over Brexit.
Butt if the syllogism you are looking for says that if it gets warm enough T Rexes will be roaming the streets, bring it on!
Make of that what you will!
"It's happening and is a massive problem but the prognosis is more uncertain than those in the industry and the most ardent greens often imply".
"I don't like the sound of it, it's depressing, and I don't like the sort of people who bang on about it, and anyway from what I've read up it doesn't stack up."
First type is fine. Second type is softhead.
I couldn't bear it if everyone on PB starting writing in the style of Henry James. e.g from The Golden Bowl (plucked at random) "This establishment, mysterious and almost anonymous, the windows of which, at hours of highest pressure, never seemed, for starers and wonderers, perceptibly to glow, must in fact have been during certain years the scene of an unprecedented, a miraculous white-heat, the receipt for producing which it was practically felt that the master of the forge could not have communicated even with the best intentions." Unreadable.
C'est la vie
I would like to do a philosophy MA but the fees are simply too much to justify the outlay.
Blair's "send everyone to university" nonsense has a lot to answer for.
If economics were a science the boiling point of water at sea level would depend on who owned the kettle.
"From the look of the place you would never guess the shit that had gone down there." ??
I'll be against tuition fees when someone explains how this makes a difference at all when your rent still has to be paid for.
The Tuition Fees debate charade just keeps the working classes in their place
Speaking as someone without a degree - I'm all for them.
Why should an Asda worker have to pay for the higher education of the mainly middle class?