O/T: great piece David Herdson, and thanks for mentioning the elephant in the room: human over-population.
It is also worth referring to "the tragedy of the commons" (Hardin).
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
Renewables are particularly well suited to the sunnier countries, rather than the continued Forex drainage for fossil fuels. The tipping point will come with solar power being cheaper than fossil fuels, perhaps not too far away.
As explained above there ought logically to be no left v right split on this. Yet there is. A big one. Almost all of the dissenters are of the right and the reason for this is clear. They dislike the politics of most of the proposed solutions. They dislike the politics of GW and thus are motivated to find fault with the science. They should be taken seriously on the first but not the second.
"Where you stand on them will depend on your political outlook. But one would not expect a left v right split regarding the reality of GW."
The reality of global warming is simply a matter of looking at thermometers. The planet has warmed by one degree centegrade over the last century. This cannot be denied unless you are insane.
But true environmentalists (I mean deep ecologists not the anti-capitalists that call themselves environmentalists) are frustrated by the almost 100% focus and obsession with climate change when deep ecologists know that the main issue is loss of biodiversity due to human over-population and habitat loss. For example, the loss of primary rainforest in Madagascar and Borneo to palm oil plantations and other industry is utterly appalling areasons not environmental ones, and are consequently very much now part of the problem.
It’s one reason why I suggested in my article on this topic earlier this week that we should be looking at conservation of habitat and not just climate change and that the non-left should be coming up with solutions rather than simply criticising others. The left - where it has held power - has been responsible for some appalling environmental disasters.
The right is talking a about technological solutions, the left is fawning over the travels of a spoilt brat.
You have some nerve.
Too many on the right are either denying the reality of loss of habitat/biodiversity and the effects on climate or refusing to take any action
Your exhortation to non-partisanship sounds fascinatingly partisan. "if only the heathens believed!" Your assumptions are based on the left-consensus, which is not reality.
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
The conservative right have a lot to answer for on this issue and deserve all the criticism they get.
O/T: great piece David Herdson, and thanks for mentioning the elephant in the room: human over-population.
It is also worth referring to "the tragedy of the commons" (Hardin).
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
Renewables are particularly well suited to the sunnier countries, rather than the continued Forex drainage for fossil fuels. The tipping point will come with solar power being cheaper than fossil fuels, perhaps not too far away.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
The politics of Climate activists seem to call for big state intervention on everything, which is why people on the right recoil from the suggestion that big state intervention is needed to tackle climate problems. Maybe they’re wrong on this occasion but I think it probably works both ways.
Fair point.
No issue with those (on the right) who say "Sure, I accept the diagnosis and the prognosis. But the best treatments are all free market based, such as this and that and this."
You can debate this. It's fine. Out of that sort of debate come solutions to the climate crisis. No doubt in the end a mix of state and market, national and international, coercion and incentive.
That is different to rejecting the core diagnosis/prognosis purely because you do not like the sort of solutions being floated by certain groups. Out of that sort of debate comes precisely nothing of any value.
As explained above there ought logically to be no left v right split on this. Yet there is. A big one. Almost all of the dissenters are of the right and the reason for this is clear. They dislike the politics of most of the proposed solutions. They dislike the politics of GW and thus are motivated to find fault with the science. They should be taken seriously on the first but not the second.
"Where you stand on them will depend on your political outlook. But one would not expect a left v right split regarding the reality of GW."
The reality of global warming is simply a matter of looking at thermometers. The orately steered environmentalist groups (including the Sierra Club for goodness sake) in the climate change direction for political reasons not environmental ones, and are consequently very much now part of the problem.
It’s one reason why I suggested in my article on this topic earlier this week that we should be looking at conservation of habitat and not just climate change and that the non-left should be coming up with solutions rather than simply criticising others. The left - where it has held power - has been responsible for some appalling environmental disasters.
The right is talking a about technological solutions, the left is fawning over the travels of a spoilt brat.
You have some nerve.
Read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/20/political-cross-dressing/ - to understand why I wrote that. Too many on the right are either denying the reality of loss of habitat/biodiversity and the effects on climate or ref Most recently, he has taken steps to remove pollution controls on a very significant proportion of the US’s waterways. What sort of a solution is that?
Too much of CC is used as a canvass for socialist policies. Pretty much everything that utters out of the words of greta, XR and the Greens just is not true, not based on evidence and is borderline religious hysteria. The world is not ending in eight years, the human race is not on the edge of extinction and there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'...
I don't need an alternative theory, in the same way I don't need an alternative religion to Christianity in order to be an atheist. If a theory doesn't persuade me I'm content to be unpersuaded.
Here is hypothesis A, here is hypothesis B, let's see which hypothesis explains the data better. The climate scientists have a hypothesis A. What is hypothesis B?
You are "content to be unpersuaded" without any hypothesis. Fine.
But I hope you can see why most people think that -- despite a patchy theory with a poorish predictive record -- the climate scientists have at least engaged with the data & tried to understand it. Whereas you haven't.
More to the point, if MD is wrong, and we act on it, we fucked. if you’re wrong, but we act on it, we’ll invest a lot of money, and MD will have no energy bills by the time he’s a pensioner.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
'Is going to discover' is different from 'really, really needs to discover'; all part of the (bit too) sunny, new BJ world in which we find ourselves I guess.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
'Is going to discover' is different from 'really, really needs to discover'; all part of the (bit too) sunny, new BJ world in which we find ourselves I guess.
It is what the IPCC say also. Carbon neutral can only be achieved by the scaling up of undiscovered carbon capture technologies.
HYUFD - OT, but responding to a post last night that I was too tired to respond to at the time.
You correctly pointed out that a lot of the Tories gains from the red wall were with big majorities and bigger than a number of the southern seats now. You deduced it makes them safer when there is a swing back. Sorry if I have any of that wrong, but I can't be bothered to reread it.
You may well be correct but surely there is a flaw in that logic. To have won these Labour strongholds and with big majorities and make them safer than seats held in the South, means there was not a uniform swing (although that might be over more than one election). So you have a non uniform swing, but you assume a uniform swing when making a future prediction.
If there is a uniform swing against you will be right, but if not as happened here to create this scenario you won't be.
I guess what is more important is why this happened and whether you still think this will be in play next time. I assume you think it will.
The Tories only picked up 40-50 seats. Many had been trending Tory gradually for many years. It is not unreasonable to assume some of them will buck the trend further by becoming more safely blue as say, Mansfield and Morley have, just as others in the south may follow the lead of Canterbury or Hove by trending Labour.
The problem is Labour need at least double that even to be able to put together a vaguely realistic minority governement. They have only ever twice made net gains of over sixty seats since the Second World War - 1945 and 1997.
It’s a gigantic task.
It's amazing to think of all the coalfield seats, where people would have spat at the mention of the Conservatives, 25 years ago, that have now gone blue.
Or, compare Wandsworth, which now has no Conservative seats, with Stoke and Newcastle under Lyme, which now have no Labour seats (the Conservatives reached 62% in Stoke South).
The end of class-based voting has resulted in the Conservatives coming back in places they haven't win since the twenties and thirties.
But has class based voting stopped or should our definitions of class be considered.
How do we define middle class ? Education ? Employment ? Home ownership ?
If home ownership is part of the definition of being middle class then the Conservative coalfield constituencies are more middle class than Wandsworth.
Which is why older middle class voters are still Tory on the whole, once they have bought a property.
While Labour won 18 to 34 year old ABs, the Tories won 35 to 54 year old ABs and ABs over 55. Younger middle class graduate voters are concentrated in London and big cities and tend to rent
As explained above there ought logically to be no left v right split on this. Yet there is. A big one. Almost all of the dissenters are of the right and the reason for this is clear. They dislike the politics of most of the proposed solutions. They dislike the politics of GW and thus are motivated to find fault with the science. They should be taken seriously on the first but not the second.
"Where you stand on them will depend on your political
It’s one reason why I suggested in my article on this topic
The right is talking a about technological solutions, the left is fawning over the travels of a spoilt brat.
You have some nerve.
Read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/20/political-cross-dressing/ - to understand why I wrote that. Too many on the right are either denying the reality of loss of habitat/biodiversity and the effects on climate or ref Most recently, he has taken steps to remove pollution controls on a very significant proportion of the US’s waterways. What sort of a solution is that?
Too much of CC is used as a canvass for socialist policies. Pretty much everything that utters out of the words of greta, XR and the Greens just is not true, not based on evidence and is borderline religious hysteria. The world is not ending in eight years, the human race is not on the edge of extinction and there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'. The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2. But the world is not both on fire and disappearing under floods.
Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not. We do not know. Those that jump to absolute conclusions as these events happen in real time are utter charlatans who know they are scamming us or those filled with such religious zeal they can see no other reason.
It is this sort of attitude from right wingers that convinces me that no adequate action will be taken on Climate Change, and that we need to prepare for the consequences, both geological and human.
Once Norfolk, Florida, the Nile Delta and Bangladesh are under water we might well find the demographic migrations around the world are rather more massive than any in recent human history.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
That would be great, and I wouldn't begrudge the inventors any amount of wealth and fame for such discoveries. But most scientific progress depends on at least a sketchy outline of the theory if a scalable working model is to be developed within a couple of decades. Is there any scienitific theory at all that what you're suggesting is possible?
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
You claim not to be left but this attitude is progressive, not liberal.
So the implicit assumption is if I fundamentally don't agree with some of the claims being made, or the re-distributive "solutions" to said claims, then I "don't care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children".
The partisanship is precisely because of the leftist tendency to catastrophize to further their agenda.
As explained above there ought logically to be no left v right split on this. Yet there is. A big one. Almost all of the dissenters are of the right and the reason for this is clear. They dislike the politics of most of the proposed solutions. They dislike the politics of GW and thus are motivated to find fault with the science. They should be taken seriously on the first but not the second.
" the problem.
It’s one reason why I suggested in my article on this topic earlier this week that we should be looking at conservation of habitat and not just climate change and that the non-left should be coming up with solutions rather than simply criticising others. The left - where it has held power - has been responsible for some appalling environmental disasters.
The right is talking a about technological solutions, the left is fawning over the travels of a spoilt brat.
You have some nerve.
Read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/20/political-cross-dressing/ - to understand why I wrote that. Too many on the right are either denying the reality of loss of habitat/biodiversity and the effects on climate or ref Most recently, he has taken steps to remove pollution controls on a very significant proportion of the US’s waterways. What sort of a solution is that?
Too much of CC is used as a canvass for socialist policies. Pretty much everything that utters out of the words of greta, XR and the Greens just is not true, not based on evidence and is borderline religious hysteria. The world is not ending in eight years, the human race is not on the edge of extinction and there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'...
The definition in that article says: "The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an irreversible change in the climate system. It states that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point remain uncertain, but that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature.[8] "
It states that there arent any but they might be, the scientific equive of yeah but not but yeah. ... Do people not read these things? They read the journalist reports of them but not the actual things themselves.
"Where you stand on them will depend on your political outlook. But one would not expect a left v right split regarding the reality of GW."
The reality of global warming is simply a matter of looking at thermometers. The planet has warmed by one degree centegrade over the last century. This cannot be denied unless you are insane.
But true environmentalists (I mean deep ecologists not the anti-capitalists that call themselves environmentalists) are frustrated by the almost 100% focus and obsession with climate change when deep ecologists know that the main issue is loss of biodiversity due to human over-population and habitat loss. For example, the loss of primary rainforest in Madagascar and Borneo to palm oil plantations and other industry is utterly appalling areasons not environmental ones, and are consequently very much now part of the problem.
It’s one reason why I suggested in my article on this topic earlier this week that we should be looking at conservation of habitat and not just climate change and that the non-left should be coming up with solutions rather than simply criticising others. The left - where it has held power - has been responsible for some appalling environmental disasters.
The right is talking a about technological solutions, the left is fawning over the travels of a spoilt brat.
You have some nerve.
Too many on the right are either denying the reality of loss of habitat/biodiversity and the effects on climate or refusing to take any action
Your exhortation to non-partisanship sounds fascinatingly partisan. "if only the heathens believed!" Your assumptions are based on the left-consensus, which is not reality.
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
The conservative right have a lot to answer for on this issue and deserve all the criticism they get.
That was - in part - the point of my article. Genuine conservatives should be in favour of conservation. Too many have been seduced by a very anti-scientific short-term and limited view which is contrary to what conservatives and others should want: long-term sustainable growth which does not do irreparable damage to our planet.
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
'Is going to discover' is different from 'really, really needs to discover'; all part of the (bit too) sunny, new BJ world in which we find ourselves I guess.
It is what the IPCC say also. Carbon neutral can only be achieved by the scaling up of undiscovered carbon capture technologies.
How do you scale up technologies if they're undiscovered?
Labour to Tory switchers in the bluewall cast a positive vote for Brexit and for Boris, not just an anti Corbyn vote, they are unlikely to switch back whoever the Labour Leader is and are ideological Leavers.
Tory Remainers in London and the South who voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 did so mainly to keep Corbyn out, they might on the other hand consider a Starmer led Labour Party or the LDs with the threat of Corbyn removed, as might Remainers who went from Labour to LD.
Are you really suggesting that people will vote Tory for a "generation" because they are "ideological Leavers"?
Brexit can't be an excuse forever. The "blue wall" is built on sand.
While Boris is leader absolutely, ending free movement and regaining sovereignty is at the top of their agenda.
A Starmer led Labour Party offering a return to the single market would have more chance winning Tory Remainers in London and the South than Labour Leavers who voted Tory at the last general election in the North, Wales and the Midlands
But:
1. Starmer isn't offering a return to the single market
2. The end of free movement won't stop all immigration, and there are enough immigrants in the UK already to keep anyone who is anti-immigration angry for a long, long time.
3. Regaining sovereignty is an amorphous blob. People wanted to "take back control", but who will actually feel like they're more in control once Brexit is over? Without Europe to blame, the govt of the day will be more directly in the firing line.
Starmer wants single market alignment which means free movement again and an end to the Boris points system for EU migrants
And yet he's specifically said their have to be controls on free movement (a quick search finds quotes from 2017, right up to last week).
And the other points I made? Do you really think people will feel they've taken back control? Will people stop noticing the million Europeans that are already here?
Starmer still wants free movement, using the 'emergency brake' the single market offers does not mean free movement is ended.
For white working class Leave voters who voted Tory it is a cultural and ideological issue, ending free movement and tighter immigration controls and regaining sovereignty. That does not mean kicking out every EU citizen already here but even if it did they would go Brexit Party or BNP not Labour
O/T: great piece David Herdson, and thanks for mentioning the elephant in the room: human over-population.
It is also worth referring to "the tragedy of the commons" (Hardin).
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
It is called the UN but the US and China will never agree to global governance, if they change it will be by their choice
Yes - and that`s the problem. There is no practical answer, life on earth will become more and more impoverished. Wars will be fought over the last of the resources. The global species-count will fall and fall, mainly through habitat loss.
The tragedy is that no single human wants this, but collectively it the effect that our species has.
The choice is to expand renewables not to engage in Armageddon panic, we are leading the way on that producing more renewable than fossil fuel energy
It's amazing to think of all the coalfield seats, where people would have spat at the mention of the Conservatives, 25 years ago, that have now gone blue.
Or, compare Wandsworth, which now has no Conservative seats, with Stoke and Newcastle under Lyme, which now have no Labour seats (the Conservatives reached 62% in Stoke South).
The end of class-based voting has resulted in the Conservatives coming back in places they haven't win since the twenties and thirties.
But has class based voting stopped or should our definitions of class be considered.
How do we define middle class ? Education ? Employment ? Home ownership ?
If home ownership is part of the definition of being middle class then the Conservative coalfield constituencies are more middle class than Wandsworth.
Which is why older middle class voters are still Tory on the whole, once they have bought a property.
While Labour won 18 to 34 year old ABs, the Tories won 35 to 54 year old ABs and ABs over 55. Younger middle class graduate voters are concentrated in London and big cities and tend to rent
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
You claim not to be left but your attitude is progressive, not liberal.
So the implicit assumption is if I fundamentally don't agree with some of the claims being made, or the re-distributive "solutions" to said claims, then I "don't care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children".
The partisanship is precisely because of the leftist tendency to catastrophize to further their agenda.
I have not made claims on the science because I am not a scientist. I have said - in my article - that there need to be a range of solutions, not simply “leftist” ones. You have chosen not to understand my central point: caring for our planet and the humans living in it should not be seen as an exclusively leftist issue, not least because plenty of people who are not leftist care just as much about the world they live in and the future for their children.
HYUFD - OT, but responding to a post last night that I was too tired to respond to at the time.
You correctly pointed out that a lot of the Tories gains from the red wall were with big majorities and bigger than a number of the southern seats now. You deduced it makes them safer when there is a swing back. Sorry if I have any of that wrong, but I can't be bothered to reread it.
You may well be correct but surely there is a flaw in that logic. To have won these Labour strongholds and with big majorities and make them safer than seats held in the South, means there was not a uniform swing (although that might be over more than one election). So you have a non uniform swing, but you assume a uniform swing when making a future prediction.
If there is a uniform swing against you will be right, but if not as happened here to create this scenario you won't be.
I guess what is more important is why this happened and whether you still think this will be in play next time. I assume you think it will.
It will as it matches the cultural change across the western world, in the US, Australia, Italy, Canada etc not just the UK ie the white working class moving right and voting for conservatives, the graduate middle class increasingly voting for left liberal parties
Cheers.
Although I haven't looked at this my gut feeling is what you say is correct, although I wasn't aware of this re Canada.
It is a bit scary as this is the route to fascism.
A personal point but I do not agree with the mixing of the terms 'left' and 'liberal' although I appreciate it is common and on the right is often confused. I consider myself to be liberal, but definitely not from the left. I am certainly to the right of you I suspect on many issues in particular the economy and authoritarianism of Government.
In Canada too the Liberals win more graduates than the Conservatives.
It is most acute on social issues and immigration, in terms of economics then yes wealthy middle class voters will be more liberal than socialist eg Macron not Hamon, LD not Corbyn Labour, Obama not Sanders if they do not vote conservative
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth...
The most recent contract for bulk solar in the Middle East was signed at 1.7c per kWh, so the evidence is that you’re already wrong.
The world is not ending in eight years, the human race is not on the edge of extinction and there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'. The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2. But the world is not both on fire and disappearing under floods.
Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not. We do not know. Those that jump to absolute conclusions as these events happen in real time are utter charlatans who know they are scamming us or those filled with such religious zeal they can see no other reason.
"The world is not ending in eight years" - you are right, and I was horrified to hear some XR activists suggest that it is. Any scientist with genuine expertise would reject that claim
"the human race is not on the edge of extinction" - as above
"there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'" - Tipping points are a trendy term for bifurcations. These are well understood, both mathematically and conceptually, in a variety of fields, the most obvious example is a saddle between two valleys. Aspects of the Earth's climate have crossed tipping points in the past, and anthropogenic warming is capable of causing major tipping points in the Amazon, Greenland, and the North Atlantic (among others) to be crossed. Many glaciers have already crossed tipping points.
"The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2" - as well as a mechanism linking the two which has been well understood since the 19th Century (discovered by the great mathematician Fourier; applied to climate by the great chemist Arrhenius) and many studies demonstrating that this explains the warming but no other known process can.
"Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not." - climate change is increasing the frequency of many extreme events (or if you prefer, it is making normal events that were once extreme). The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change
This is what I mean by not conflating messenger with message. Yes, some people in XR make silly exaggerations. Yes, phrases like "climate change caused the bushfires" are sometimes used in place of the precise "the bushfires almost certainly would not have occurred on this scale without climate change".
By all means criticise these flaws. It's absolutely right to criticise these flaws. But don't then go on and dismiss the science of tipping points, downplay the weight of evidence on climate change, or be disinclined to support mitigation efforts, because of them.
I hold a highly unpopular opinion on climate change[1] which pisses everybody off so I'll leave you guys to it. I will briefly point out that Star Trek: Picard is now out and the reviews are positively glowing with goodness, so I'm quite pleased at the moment. So there you go.
[1] I genuinely don't care about it. Willing to believe the science, willing to believe the criticisms of it, but there's nothing I can do to make things better or worse and I have more immediate problems to deal with. So please feel free to carry on caring deeply about it, whilst i do something else.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
It's amazing to think of all the coalfield seats, where people would have spat at the mention of the Conservatives, 25 years ago, that have now gone blue.
Or, compare Wandsworth, which now has no Conservative seats, with Stoke and Newcastle under Lyme, which now have no Labour seats (the Conservatives reached 62% in Stoke South).
The end of class-based voting has resulted in the Conservatives coming back in places they haven't win since the twenties and thirties.
But has class based voting stopped or should our definitions of class be considered.
How do we define middle class ? Education ? Employment ? Home ownership ?
If home ownership is part of the definition of being middle class then the Conservative coalfield constituencies are more middle class than Wandsworth.
Which is why older middle class voters are still Tory on the whole, once they have bought a property.
While Labour won 18 to 34 year old ABs, the Tories won 35 to 54 year old ABs and ABs over 55. Younger middle class graduate voters are concentrated in London and big cities and tend to rent
I'd say if you cannot afford to buy a home where you live then you are not middle class.
By that definition most young graduates, especially in urban areas, are heavily indebted working class.
Which makes their Labour voting part of class based voting.
There are many factors in being middle class, education, employment as well as home ownership but as you say the latter is probably the key factor affecting voting intention at the moment other than attitude to Brexit
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
Article of the week. Outstanding on HS2 and the need for a transport corridor.
"This year a new corridor is nearing readiness. And having talked ourselves into it, we’re now in danger of talking ourselves out of it again. We must be crazy."
I don't need an alternative theory, in the same way I don't need an alternative religion to Christianity in order to be an atheist. If a theory doesn't persuade me I'm content to be unpersuaded.
Here is hypothesis A, here is hypothesis B, let's see which hypothesis explains the data better. The climate scientists have a hypothesis A. What is hypothesis B?
You are "content to be unpersuaded" without any hypothesis. Fine.
But I hope you can see why most people think that -- despite a patchy theory with a poorish predictive record -- the climate scientists have at least engaged with the data & tried to understand it. Whereas you haven't.
More to the point, if MD is wrong, and we act on it, we fucked. if you’re wrong, but we act on it, we’ll invest a lot of money, and MD will have no energy bills by the time he’s a pensioner.
A Starmer led Labour Party offering a return to the single market would have more chance winning Tory Remainers in London and the South than Labour Leavers who voted Tory at the last general election in the North, Wales and the Midlands
Not all, I canvassed a number of Tory Remainers in Chingford who were not happy with Brexit but still voting Tory to keep Corbyn out.
Chingford and Woodford Green is now a far likelier Labour gain than say Great Grimsby
A Starmer led Labour Party offering a return to the single market would have more chance winning Tory Remainers in London and the South than Labour Leavers who voted Tory at the last general election in the North, Wales and the Midlands
Starmer would be taking those southern "Tory Remainers" from the LibDems. where they went in 2019. Not huge electoral rewards there, modestly pushing up a Labour vote that in many seats is nowhere near the Tories.
Not all, I canvassed a number of Tory Remainers in Chingford who were not happy with Brexit but still voting Tory to keep Corbyn out.
Chingford and Woodford Green is now a far likelier Labour gain than say Great Grimsby
I don't believe that evidence is at all clear based on a single election result - or even two if 2017 data is included. In Labour heartland seats its performance was clearly greatly undermined by two factors - Corbyn and Brexit. Had Corbyn not been leader, Brexit would still have depressed Labour's vote there but the losses would have been more modest - and probably offset by some Labour gains further south. We cannot be sure that Brexit will be an issue by 2023 or 2024 - but almost certainly it will be minor in its saliency when compared to 2019 - or even 2017. We do know that Corbyn will be long gone , and that that on its own might be enough to reverse circa 20 of the Labour losses. Labour lost its citadels on a much more massive scale back in 1931 - but was able to regain most of them in 1935. Sudden massive swings over the two and a half years between the 2017 and 2019 elections could well be unstable - notwithstanding longer term demographic trends. Moreover, many of the Tory heartland seats which toppled in 1997 were back in Tory hands in 2005 - Romford - Upminster - Norfolk NW - Welwyn & Hatfield - Shipley - Monmouth. I suspect it is premature to assume that the 2019 results in the North and the Midlands herald a repeat of what Labour suffered in Havering and Southern Essex post-1979.
Apologies for intruding with Brexit news, but this a new "winning strategy" that the government is adding to the others. A trade war with the entire planet is the key it seems to unlocking those easiest trade deals in history.
Apparently the Canadians are to blame for this by turning their noses up at an FTA with the Mother Country.
Elon Musk - a very bright guy - rejects the current scientific consensus that the world is real. His view is that we are components of a virtual reality game developed by a life form vastly more intelligent than we can even conceive of. He uses logic and probability theory to arrive at this conclusion. It's no idle fantasy. And this is Elon Musk. Tesla, space flight, all of that. A genuine visionary. So he may be right. Perhaps one day it will become clear that he is.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
If Bernie does win Iowa and New Hampshire as looks increasingly likely the Democratic establishment will swarm around Biden in a 'Custer's last stand' in South Carolina and then try and claw back from there but the momentum will still be with Sanders
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
Something seems to have gone wrong with my Dem nominee betting, since I find myself red on everyone except Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg (but green on everyone except Biden, Sanders, Clinton and Bloomberg). Which surely can’t be a rational book on this market.
Elon Musk - a very bright guy - rejects the current scientific consensus that the world is real. His view is that we are components of a virtual reality game developed by a life form vastly more intelligent than we can even conceive of. He uses logic and probability theory to arrive at this conclusion. It's no idle fantasy. And this is Elon Musk. Tesla, space flight, all of that. A genuine visionary. So he may be right. Perhaps one day it will become clear that he is.
But in the meantime.
Not to worry, i have a firm grasp on the VR headset i use to control all you earthlings and your soon to be incinerated planet.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
If Bernie does win Iowa and New Hampshire as looks increasingly likely the Democratic establishment will swarm around Biden in a 'Custer's last stand' in South Carolina and then try and claw back from there but the momentum will still be with Sanders
NYT:
"Moderates are still powerful. The Democratic Party is moving left, but about half of Democrats still say they are moderate or conservative. No candidate has ever won a nomination without strong support from these voters, while college-town candidates — Howard Dean, Gary Hart — tend to falter."
"But Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders here are a doctoral student’s idea of a working-class candidate, not an actual working person’s idea of one."
That Burgon is still being considered as somehow a credible Lab deputy leader speaks volumes as to the suicidal tendencies of that party’s members and influencers.
Elon Musk - a very bright guy - rejects the current scientific consensus that the world is real. His view is that we are components of a virtual reality game developed by a life form vastly more intelligent than we can even conceive of. He uses logic and probability theory to arrive at this conclusion. It's no idle fantasy. And this is Elon Musk. Tesla, space flight, all of that. A genuine visionary. So he may be right. Perhaps one day it will become clear that he is.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
Something seems to have gone wrong with my Dem nominee betting, since I find myself red on everyone except Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg (but green on everyone except Biden, Sanders, Clinton and Bloomberg). Which surely can’t be a rational book on this market.
Rather unwisely, I have be so convinced Dems would not be stupid enough to put Sanders up against Trump, that I have gone deeply red on him.
"The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2" - as well as a mechanism linking the two which has been well understood since the 19th Century (discovered by the great mathematician Fourier; applied to climate by the great chemist Arrhenius) and many studies demonstrating that this explains the warming but no other known process can.
"Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not." - climate change is increasing the frequency of many extreme events (or if you prefer, it is making normal events that were once extreme). The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change
This is what I mean by not conflating messenger with message. Yes, some people in XR make silly exaggerations. Yes, phrases like "climate change caused the bushfires" are sometimes used in place of the precise "the bushfires almost certainly would not have occurred on this scale without climate change".
By all means criticise these flaws. It's absolutely right to criticise these flaws. But don't then go on and dismiss the science of tipping points, downplay the weight of evidence on climate change, or be disinclined to support mitigation efforts, because of them.
For starters even the IPCC admit there is no positive evidence that extreme weather is getting worse. The Oz fires have been worse in the past and a natural occurence in one of the driest,hottest countries on earth. Climate change has had nothing to do with them at all despite the extremists endeavours to make it so. By far the largest wildfires in recent memory were in 1974 and many instances previous. There is no weight of evidence, but a massive political juggernaut designed to push a worldwide indoctrination of left wing groupthink ideology.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
If Bernie does win Iowa and New Hampshire as looks increasingly likely the Democratic establishment will swarm around Biden in a 'Custer's last stand' in South Carolina and then try and claw back from there but the momentum will still be with Sanders
NYT:
"Moderates are still powerful. The Democratic Party is moving left, but about half of Democrats still say they are moderate or conservative. No candidate has ever won a nomination without strong support from these voters, while college-town candidates — Howard Dean, Gary Hart — tend to falter."
"But Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders here are a doctoral student’s idea of a working-class candidate, not an actual working person’s idea of one."
Well with any luck Dems will look to see how JC won so many general elections and understand how successful he was.
I still can't understand the desth wish of Dems if they are serious about Biden or Sanders. Trump must be laughing at the ineptitude of Dems.
That Burgon is still being considered as somehow a credible Lab deputy leader speaks volumes as to the suicidal tendencies of that party’s members and influencers.
It looks like Rayner will beat him to become Deputy at the moment but we will see, the Corbynite ticket is Long Bailey- Burgon
I hold a highly unpopular opinion on climate change[1] which pisses everybody off so I'll leave you guys to it. I will briefly point out that Star Trek: Picard is now out and the reviews are positively glowing with goodness, so I'm quite pleased at the moment. So there you go.
[1] I genuinely don't care about it. Willing to believe the science, willing to believe the criticisms of it, but there's nothing I can do to make things better or worse and I have more immediate problems to deal with. So please feel free to carry on caring deeply about it, whilst i do something else.
Not that unpopular - that's exactly my view, and I suspect that of quite a large 'silent minority'.
Greatly enjoyed the first episode of Picard. It's not perfect, and my God Patrick Stewart is old, but it has the potential to rise well above the insipidity of its recent predecessors.
On the contrary. I am not from the left. Nor do I think this is a matter of belief. It is a matter of science and there are very good reasons why genuine (small “c”) conservatives should have a care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children.
You claim not to be left but your attitude is progressive, not liberal.
So the implicit assumption is if I fundamentally don't agree with some of the claims being made, or the re-distributive "solutions" to said claims, then I "don't care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children".
The partisanship is precisely because of the leftist tendency to catastrophize to further their agenda.
I have not made claims on the science because I am not a scientist. I have said - in my article - that there need to be a range of solutions, not simply “leftist” ones. You have chosen not to understand my central point: caring for our planet and the humans living in it should not be seen as an exclusively leftist issue, not least because plenty of people who are not leftist care just as much about the world they live in and the future for their children.
Yes, but you are missing my point. That if the measure of caring for the planet is whether you believe the left-consensus or agree with its solutions then you aren't being serious. I'm being serious, what to you would show the right caring is caring? (Again the implicit assumption here is they don't, and leftists do simply because they are currently using it as a wedge issue)
"Lets all meet in the middle. Oh btw my views are the middle-ground."
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
Something seems to have gone wrong with my Dem nominee betting, since I find myself red on everyone except Warren, Klobuchar and Buttigieg (but green on everyone except Biden, Sanders, Clinton and Bloomberg). Which surely can’t be a rational book on this market.
Rather unwisely, I have be so convinced Dems would not be stupid enough to put Sanders up against Trump, that I have gone deeply red on him.
You know the Donald is licking his lips at the prospect of running for reelection against 'Bernie the Commie' who would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972
Elon Musk - a very bright guy - rejects the current scientific consensus that the world is real. His view is that we are components of a virtual reality game developed by a life form vastly more intelligent than we can even conceive of. He uses logic and probability theory to arrive at this conclusion. It's no idle fantasy. And this is Elon Musk. Tesla, space flight, all of that. A genuine visionary. So he may be right. Perhaps one day it will become clear that he is.
But in the meantime.
It's not just Musk who thinks that (or has considered the possibility). The argument is that if it is possible, it is also highly probable because computer simulations are so easy to copy, so there will be many more of them than of real worlds.
A corollary is that we should all behave as wackily as possible, because the more boring the sim the more likely someone will wipe it.
Well with any luck Dems will look to see how JC won so many general elections and understand how successful he was.
I still can't understand the desth wish of Dems if they are serious about Biden or Sanders. Trump must be laughing at the ineptitude of Dems.
The position is a bit like the Labour selection in 2015 - a left-winger with clear opinions vs a range of people with no obvious themes. The polls suggest that all of them have similar modest leads vs Trump (if anything Sanders does slightly better than e.g. Buttigieg), so the guy who actually has a platform leads the "vote for me 'cos I could win" people.
The main change in the last fortnight is that liberals who are now paying attention have decided that Bernie is to the left of Warren (as he undoubtedly is). The centrists need to decide to stand for something and focus on the candidate most able to say what it is. They could easily still win, but they need a focal policy or two.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
If Bernie does win Iowa and New Hampshire as looks increasingly likely the Democratic establishment will swarm around Biden in a 'Custer's last stand' in South Carolina and then try and claw back from there but the momentum will still be with Sanders
NYT:
"Moderates are still powerful. The Democratic Party is moving left, but about half of Democrats still say they are moderate or conservative. No candidate has ever won a nomination without strong support from these voters, while college-town candidates — Howard Dean, Gary Hart — tend to falter."
"But Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders here are a doctoral student’s idea of a working-class candidate, not an actual working person’s idea of one."
Well with any luck Dems will look to see how JC won so many general elections and understand how successful he was.
I still can't understand the desth wish of Dems if they are serious about Biden or Sanders. Trump must be laughing at the ineptitude of Dems.
But don't you see - JC's Labour "won the argument" (so we are told!).
Apologies for intruding with Brexit news, but this a new "winning strategy" that the government is adding to the others. A trade war with the entire planet is the key it seems to unlocking those easiest trade deals in history.
Apparently the Canadians are to blame for this by turning their noses up at an FTA with the Mother Country.
I hold a highly unpopular opinion on climate change[1] which pisses everybody off so I'll leave you guys to it. I will briefly point out that Star Trek: Picard is now out and the reviews are positively glowing with goodness, so I'm quite pleased at the moment. So there you go.
[1] I genuinely don't care about it. Willing to believe the science, willing to believe the criticisms of it, but there's nothing I can do to make things better or worse and I have more immediate problems to deal with. So please feel free to carry on caring deeply about it, whilst i do something else.
My view is that there are solutions to reduce CO2 emissions that can be put in place without undue cost or denial of development opportunities to those that aren't consuming at First World rates - given a bit of time and a bit of resilience on the part of the planet. Whether we have that time and the planet that resilience I don't know. It's worth putting some pressure on, I think.
HYUFD - OT, but responding to a post last night that I was too tired to respond to at the time.
You correctly pointed out that a lot of the Tories gains from the red wall were with big majorities and bigger than a number of the southern seats now. You deduced it makes them safer when there is a swing back. Sorry if I have any of that wrong, but I can't be bothered to reread it.
You may well be correct but surely there is a flaw in that logic. To have won these Labour strongholds and with big majorities and make them safer than seats held in the South, means there was not a uniform swing (although that might be over more than one election). So you have a non uniform swing, but you assume a uniform swing when making a future prediction.
If there is a uniform swing against you will be right, but if not as happened here to create this scenario you won't be.
I guess what is more important is why this happened and whether you still think this will be in play next time. I assume you think it will.
It will as it matches the cultural change across the western world, in the US, Australia, Italy, Canada etc not just the UK ie the white working class moving right and voting for conservatives, the graduate middle class increasingly voting for left liberal parties
Cheers.
Although I haven't looked at this my gut feeling is what you say is correct, although I wasn't aware of this re Canada.
It is a bit scary as this is the route to fascism.
A personal point but I do not agree with the mixing of the terms 'left' and 'liberal' although I appreciate it is common and on the right is often confused. I consider myself to be liberal, but definitely not from the left. I am certainly to the right of you I suspect on many issues in particular the economy and authoritarianism of Government.
In Canada too the Liberals win more graduates than the Conservatives.
It is most acute on social issues and immigration, in terms of economics then yes wealthy middle class voters will be more liberal than socialist eg Macron not Hamon, LD not Corbyn Labour, Obama not Sanders if they do not vote conservative
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
"The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2" - as well as a mechanism linking the two which has been well understood since the 19th Century (discovered by the great mathematician Fourier; applied to climate by the great chemist Arrhenius) and many studies demonstrating that this explains the warming but no other known process can.
"Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not." - climate change is increasing the frequency of many extreme events (or if you prefer, it is making normal events that were once extreme). The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change
This is what I mean by not conflating messenger with message. Yes, some people in XR make silly exaggerations. Yes, phrases like "climate change caused the bushfires" are sometimes used in place of the precise "the bushfires almost certainly would not have occurred on this scale without climate change".
By all means criticise these flaws. It's absolutely right to criticise these flaws. But don't then go on and dismiss the science of tipping points, downplay the weight of evidence on climate change, or be disinclined to support mitigation efforts, because of them.
For starters even the IPCC admit there is no positive evidence that extreme weather is getting worse. The Oz fires have been worse in the past and a natural occurence in one of the driest,hottest countries on earth. Climate change has had nothing to do with them at all despite the extremists endeavours to make it so. By far the largest wildfires in recent memory were in 1974 and many instances previous. There is no weight of evidence, but a massive political juggernaut designed to push a worldwide indoctrination of left wing groupthink ideology.
I'm sorry, but this is just too delusional to be worth spending much time engaging with. Very briefly:
On the fires, them occurring naturally, and occasionally being severe in the past is what you would expect from "The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change"
If you have genuine good-faith opinions, then I'm happy to discuss them, but if you keep spouting nonsense like "There is no weight of evidence, but a massive political juggernaut designed to push a worldwide indoctrination of left wing groupthink ideology", then this will be the last time I respond to a comment of yours on this topic.
I hold a highly unpopular opinion on climate change[1] which pisses everybody off so I'll leave you guys to it. I will briefly point out that Star Trek: Picard is now out and the reviews are positively glowing with goodness, so I'm quite pleased at the moment. So there you go.
[1] I genuinely don't care about it. Willing to believe the science, willing to believe the criticisms of it, but there's nothing I can do to make things better or worse and I have more immediate problems to deal with. So please feel free to carry on caring deeply about it, whilst i do something else.
Not that unpopular - that's exactly my view, and I suspect that of quite a large 'silent minority'.
Greatly enjoyed the first episode of Picard. It's not perfect, and my God Patrick Stewart is old, but it has the potential to rise well above the insipidity of its recent predecessors.
Glad to know Picard bodes well.
I'm praying he doesn't accept the (rumoured) MCU return of Professor X. Hes not just too old, he's hit the age where he's aging very quickly. At some point he's just not going to be able to do it. They should just age-up James McAvoy with that new tech
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Ah, the carbon-sucking unicorns, as I've seen them described. Not much sign of them skipping to the rescue yet.....
As per my much earlier post, I thought this a bonkers idea a few years ago, but I suspect it is going to be needed as part of the solution now. And is it a unicorn? I don't know, but it is certainly in operation now. Whether viable I don't know.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
In general I would say renewable energy is a good news story and an example of what mankind is capable of when it puts its collective mind to a problem.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
Yes, Sanders now surging to the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire in new polls this week as the Democratic establishment starts to panic as they face their Corbyn moment
I am close to panic, as very red on Bernie, and also despairing at the utter stupidity of Dems voting for someone who will lose to Trump.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
If Bernie does win Iowa and New Hampshire as looks increasingly likely the Democratic establishment will swarm around Biden in a 'Custer's last stand' in South Carolina and then try and claw back from there but the momentum will still be with Sanders
NYT:
"Moderates are still powerful. The Democratic Party is moving left, but about half of Democrats still say they are moderate or conservative. No candidate has ever won a nomination without strong support from these voters, while college-town candidates — Howard Dean, Gary Hart — tend to falter."
"But Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders here are a doctoral student’s idea of a working-class candidate, not an actual working person’s idea of one."
Well with any luck Dems will look to see how JC won so many general elections and understand how successful he was.
I still can't understand the desth wish of Dems if they are serious about Biden or Sanders. Trump must be laughing at the ineptitude of Dems.
There is no Brexit in America that can sink Bernie like it sank Corbyn.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
Apologies for intruding with Brexit news, but this a new "winning strategy" that the government is adding to the others. A trade war with the entire planet is the key it seems to unlocking those easiest trade deals in history.
Apparently the Canadians are to blame for this by turning their noses up at an FTA with the Mother Country.
Err, weren't you one of those people critical of the government for pursuing low tariffs early last year. This is the right policy, anyway. The previous May policy of having no or low tariffs would have been a disaster. Boris, again, getting it right where May wasn't.
By the way it's still not certain that Sanders will win Iowa.
It's a caucus not a primary, so the polling error is greater than usual, and it's Iowa which decides only at the very last moment.
But if he is leading by close to 10 points I say he wins, but I'll wait until the Selzer poll next Sunday morning to be sure which way the wind is blowing.
One thing stays the same, if Sanders or Biden win Iowa they win the nomination.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
Without the ice and snow, temperatures rise.
There's substantial ice loss in Antartica, no?
Yes. The darkening snow/ice phenomenon is happening in both poles, I expect the particulates from the Australian bush fires will lead to a pretty big loss of Antarctic ice in a couple of year time.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
Without the ice and snow, temperatures rise.
There is indeed "polar amplification", i.e. warming is faster at high latitude, although the warming is almost everywhere (there are very small-scale exceptions such as one in the Labrador Sea). And you've identified two important mechanisms for this.
So first of all, even without the "dark snow" effect, the warming causes ice loss. Ice is highly reflective (high albedo), so it reflects more energy back to space than the underlying ocean or land. So losing the ice causes more warming. This is well understood, and generally regarded as the most important mechanism.
And then there is the dark snow effect. Particles have a greater effect on ice albedo than on other surfaces, so it amplifies warming more there than elsewhere. The importance of this is much less well understood, partly because it's really hard to observe, and partly because particles have other effects (e.g. on cloud formation).
Just on what you said - which is not that unusual or outrageous I don't think - but how is GW so very different from any other big issue that you can't personally do much of anything about, i.e just about any big issue that we care to mention?
Just on what you said - which is not that unusual or outrageous I don't think - but how is GW so very different from any other big issue that you can't personally do much of anything about, i.e just about any big issue that we care to mention?
Because nothing we do in the UK will stop China from adding 100 coal fired power stations in the coming year. We all live on the same planet.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
Those on the right do tend to reject suggestions which involve any curtailment of humans` "right" to do what we like with the planet, firstly because these suggestions are perceived as left-wing and secondly because it is part of conservative ideology that humans are special (the root being religion). But we mustn`t forget that collectivist ideology also holds that humans are special (but from a humanist standpoint).
Leaving the planet`s fate, and with it all non-human animals and plants, to either the left or to the right is doomed to failure. I`m very pessimistic, I have to say. How can we allow primary rainforest to be destroyed? Drastic and urgent action is needed, but there is no mechanism for this.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Global temperatures have risen by one degree celsius over the last century. Are you arguing with thermometers?
Global warming will be solved by technology removing greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere. At some point in the near future some bright spark is going to discover a new and very useful thing to do with carbon dioxide and someone else is going to come up with a novel way to capture it easily from the atmosphere at a conversion rate much higher than photosynthesis.
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
Or, we suck all the greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere and it makes no ruddy difference, and the climate continues to go its own sweet way.
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
Those on the right do tend to reject suggestions which involve any curtailment of humans` "right" to do what we like with the planet, firstly because these suggestions are perceived as left-wing and secondly because it is part of conservative ideology that humans are special (the root being religion). But we mustn`t forget that collectivist ideology also holds that humans are special (but from a humanist standpoint).
Leaving the planet`s fate, and with it all non-human animals and plants, to either the left or to the right is doomed to failure. I`m very pessimistic, I have to say. How can we allow primary rainforest to be destroyed? Drastic and urgent action is needed, but there is no mechanism for this.
I think that is more true of the US Trumpian right than of here. I am a fairly standard issue tory and I literally don't know anyone who isn't extremely concerned about the conservation of the planet. We want there to be nature, and snow, and stuff for our children. Who doesn't?
The real problem with climate change is not the science, but the co-option of the issue by the politics of the far- and social-justice-left.
As usual, when you give the above an inch, they take the planet. So now, not content with advocating a hard left economic model to control carbon emissions - by sheer coincidence the same model they would favour even if climate change had never existed - they're now crowbarring in all their 'social justice' preoccupations into the climate debate.
But wait a minute - I thought that climate change was an existential threat to the survival of the human race? So why exactly has the left decided to jam in all their most extreme economic and social policies when they should know damned well that this will alienate the majority of the population who are no fans of such things, and will thus doom action on climate change to failure?
It's almost as if they see climate change as a useful mechanism to get around the lack of democratic consent for their ideologies, rather than as a threat to our collective existence that needs a cross-party consensus to be solved...
So, my pointing out that there are many on the right who reject the science of GW because they dislike the leftist flavour of many of the proposed solutions but pretend they know enough about the science to have spotted fatal flaws in it -
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
A surpassingly odd post. I have reviewed it very thoroughly. Are you pretending you know enough about the science to assert its validity? No doubt the question makes you feel a little sheepish.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
Global temperatures have risen by one degree celsius over the last century. Are you arguing with thermometers?
That tests to the limits my policy of not calling people morons on the internet. Does it not occur to you that there are very many alternative scientific explanations for that fact, and very many more explanations which are not scientific?
Comments
There's no other way around it and Boris/Dom should be pushing billions in the direction of this scientific research rather than wasting time trying to get the US and China to agree to something they will never stick to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
While Labour won 18 to 34 year old ABs, the Tories won 35 to 54 year old ABs and ABs over 55. Younger middle class graduate voters are concentrated in London and big cities and tend to rent
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
Once Norfolk, Florida, the Nile Delta and Bangladesh are under water we might well find the demographic migrations around the world are rather more massive than any in recent human history.
So the implicit assumption is if I fundamentally don't agree with some of the claims being made, or the re-distributive "solutions" to said claims, then I "don't care for our planet and what we leave behind for our children and grand-children".
The partisanship is precisely because of the leftist tendency to catastrophize to further their agenda.
"The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an irreversible change in the climate system. It states that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point remain uncertain, but that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature.[8] "
It states that there arent any but they might be, the scientific equive of yeah but not but yeah. ... Do people not read these things? They read the journalist reports of them but not the actual things themselves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/us/politics/democratic-iowa-poll-sanders.html
I`ve come to believe that some form of global governance is the only answer, run on non-democratic lines.
Over-population isn't the elephant in the room or particularly relevant; Humans don't need fundamentally need to burn fossil fuels to live much better lives than they do now - it's just tended to be cheaper to do it that way, much of it for legacy reasons. And the additional new CO2 usage isn't caused by growing population, it's caused by industrializing population.
The main issue here is just the coordination problem, that changing to low carbon is expensive, and the world is governed by lots of separate feuding countries, and they each have an interest to let the others do the work and get a free ride off them; That and predatory delay by people with a vested interest in doing things the old way.
But I do think it's funny that David Herdson's written an entire piece complaining Attenborough is missing the politics of the situation, but written entirely from the point of view of a British person, and totally ignores how the comments could be received in China.
Yes, Africa is where the world population is growing, but in places like Malawi the carbon footprint is around one twentieth of that of a UK citizen.
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/air-conditioning-is-the-world-s-next-big-threat
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth. With mild warming the only justification for such transformation is ideological.
And the other points I made? Do you really think people will feel they've taken back control? Will people stop noticing the million Europeans that are already here?
Starmer still wants free movement, using the 'emergency brake' the single market offers does not mean free movement is ended.
For white working class Leave voters who voted Tory it is a cultural and ideological issue, ending free movement and tighter immigration controls and regaining sovereignty. That does not mean kicking out every EU citizen already here but even if it did they would go Brexit Party or BNP not Labour
Hull East - Nandy
Middlesbrough - Nandy
North Tyneside - Starmer
Ludlow - RLB
Nuneaton - Starmer
Waveney - Starmer
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19430/scorecard/1185306/south-africa-vs-england-3rd-test-icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021
By that definition most young graduates, especially in urban areas, are heavily indebted working class.
Which makes their Labour voting part of class based voting.
It is most acute on social issues and immigration, in terms of economics then yes wealthy middle class voters will be more liberal than socialist eg Macron not Hamon, LD not Corbyn Labour, Obama not Sanders if they do not vote conservative
One increasing concern for me is the rise of aircondioning in middle income countries, a positive feedback loop accelerating warming, and creating the desire for more AC.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/air-conditioning-is-the-world-s-next-big-threat
Modern prosperity has been made possible by the advent of cheap reliable fossil fuels..something which other countries would like to replicate. Any form of energy policy predicated on renewables will be ruinously expensive and lead to poverty and lack of economic growth...
The most recent contract for bulk solar in the Middle East was signed at 1.7c per kWh, so the evidence is that you’re already wrong.
"the human race is not on the edge of extinction" - as above
"there is no scientific basis for the concept of a 'tipping point'" - Tipping points are a trendy term for bifurcations. These are well understood, both mathematically and conceptually, in a variety of fields, the most obvious example is a saddle between two valleys. Aspects of the Earth's climate have crossed tipping points in the past, and anthropogenic warming is capable of causing major tipping points in the Amazon, Greenland, and the North Atlantic (among others) to be crossed. Many glaciers have already crossed tipping points.
"The body of evidence suggests there is a rising temperature trend and there is a correlation to rising CO2" - as well as a mechanism linking the two which has been well understood since the 19th Century (discovered by the great mathematician Fourier; applied to climate by the great chemist Arrhenius) and many studies demonstrating that this explains the warming but no other known process can.
"Single extreme weather events might be caused by CC, they might not." - climate change is increasing the frequency of many extreme events (or if you prefer, it is making normal events that were once extreme). The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change
This is what I mean by not conflating messenger with message. Yes, some people in XR make silly exaggerations. Yes, phrases like "climate change caused the bushfires" are sometimes used in place of the precise "the bushfires almost certainly would not have occurred on this scale without climate change".
By all means criticise these flaws. It's absolutely right to criticise these flaws. But don't then go on and dismiss the science of tipping points, downplay the weight of evidence on climate change, or be disinclined to support mitigation efforts, because of them.
[1] I genuinely don't care about it. Willing to believe the science, willing to believe the criticisms of it, but there's nothing I can do to make things better or worse and I have more immediate problems to deal with. So please feel free to carry on caring deeply about it, whilst i do something else.
https://twitter.com/WBUR/status/1220326189492920320?s=20
https://twitter.com/MattGrossmann/status/1221038429007421440?s=20
https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/01/23/new-hampshire-bernie-sanders-lead-january
https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/1220909371904921600?s=21
"This year a new corridor is nearing readiness. And having talked ourselves into it, we’re now in danger of talking ourselves out of it again. We must be crazy."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-owe-it-to-the-next-generation-to-build-hs2-sgcpq6bj0
Your private life is of course your own affair.
We will not judge you harshly.
Apparently the Canadians are to blame for this by turning their noses up at an FTA with the Mother Country.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1221003982631591938
But in the meantime.
But, I am holding onto two things. One, I just don't believe it. I just don't believe midwestern caucus goers are going to go for someone so radical and who will lose. And two, even if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, it is then up hill for him I reckon and Biden comes to the fore.
Joe Biden Is Stronger Than You Think
Here’s why he is still winning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/joe-biden-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
"Moderates are still powerful. The Democratic Party is moving left, but about half of Democrats still say they are moderate or conservative. No candidate has ever won a nomination without strong support from these voters, while college-town candidates — Howard Dean, Gary Hart — tend to falter."
"But Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders here are a doctoral student’s idea of a working-class candidate, not an actual working person’s idea of one."
There is no weight of evidence, but a massive political juggernaut designed to
push a worldwide indoctrination of left wing groupthink ideology.
I still can't understand the desth wish of Dems if they are serious about Biden or Sanders. Trump must be laughing at the ineptitude of Dems.
Hull West (Alan Johnson's former constituency) - RLB
Greatly enjoyed the first episode of Picard. It's not perfect, and my God Patrick Stewart is old, but it has the potential to rise well above the insipidity of its recent predecessors.
"Lets all meet in the middle. Oh btw my views are the middle-ground."
A corollary is that we should all behave as wackily as possible, because the more boring the sim the more likely someone will wipe it.
The main change in the last fortnight is that liberals who are now paying attention have decided that Bernie is to the left of Warren (as he undoubtedly is). The centrists need to decide to stand for something and focus on the candidate most able to say what it is. They could easily still win, but they need a focal policy or two.
https://mobile.twitter.com/numanmyname/status/1221066983023751171
Can anyone recommend a chalet in St Anton? I plan to make my own way.
Near station and slopes preferable but that is most in St Anton anyway.
On the IPCC and extreme events, https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-events
On the fires, them occurring naturally, and occasionally being severe in the past is what you would expect from "The proximate cause of any weather event is never climate change, but e.g. the scale of the Australian bushfires this year would have been extremely improbable without climate change"
If you have genuine good-faith opinions, then I'm happy to discuss them, but if you keep spouting nonsense like "There is no weight of evidence, but a massive political juggernaut designed to push a worldwide indoctrination of left wing groupthink ideology", then this will be the last time I respond to a comment of yours on this topic.
I'm praying he doesn't accept the (rumoured) MCU return of Professor X. Hes not just too old, he's hit the age where he's aging very quickly. At some point he's just not going to be able to do it. They should just age-up James McAvoy with that new tech
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51245680
Ironic if this thread turns out to be about the wrong global crisis. The fact of China going public makes this look very serious.
Why is global warming and climate change located only in the arctic sea and nowhere else ?
If you look at satellite temperatures and ice loss, rapid changes have occurred only in the arctic mostly during the summer and areas bordering it.
My guess is pollution in the northern hemisphere is much greater and all that smog drifts over the arctic darkening the snow, melting the ice when it's sunny.
Without the ice and snow, temperatures rise.
I have reviewed the thread very thoroughly and can report that there are FIVE of such posters on here today.
I will not name them since that would be needlessly adversarial and would not help in saving the planet.
But THEY know who they are and are no doubt feeling a little sheepish.
It's a caucus not a primary, so the polling error is greater than usual, and it's Iowa which decides only at the very last moment.
But if he is leading by close to 10 points I say he wins, but I'll wait until the Selzer poll next Sunday morning to be sure which way the wind is blowing.
One thing stays the same, if Sanders or Biden win Iowa they win the nomination.
The problem is this: Big Science has collectively decided that climate change is a lethal threat. It has also decided that if it stated the case in a proper scientific manner people, and presidents, would say Oooh, look at all these reservations and counterarguments, it's all very complicated, no need to do a thing. So it has decided to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie about findings which may be absolutely valid in themselves. For starters, no scientific proposition starts with "the consensus among scientists is..." and no scientist would say such a thing except in pursuit of a strategy of misleading the public. And those guys at UEA were faking evidence. Again, they may in practice be doing the thing most likely to save the planet; that doesn't prevent it from being unscientific and dishonest. So don't pretend you can validate the science in what are not actually scientific statements at all. As some guy said, it is always possible to come up with a scientific explanation which is coherent, simple, elegant, persuasive, and wrong.
So first of all, even without the "dark snow" effect, the warming causes ice loss. Ice is highly reflective (high albedo), so it reflects more energy back to space than the underlying ocean or land. So losing the ice causes more warming. This is well understood, and generally regarded as the most important mechanism.
And then there is the dark snow effect. Particles have a greater effect on ice albedo than on other surfaces, so it amplifies warming more there than elsewhere. The importance of this is much less well understood, partly because it's really hard to observe, and partly because particles have other effects (e.g. on cloud formation).
Just on what you said - which is not that unusual or outrageous I don't think - but how is GW so very different from any other big issue that you can't personally do much of anything about, i.e just about any big issue that we care to mention?
Leaving the planet`s fate, and with it all non-human animals and plants, to either the left or to the right is doomed to failure. I`m very pessimistic, I have to say. How can we allow primary rainforest to be destroyed? Drastic and urgent action is needed, but there is no mechanism for this.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
And the arctic ice sheet is much smaller than normal only in the summer.
So climate change and global warming are mostly a localized seasonal phenomenon, but why is that ?
My guess is something like this, but caused by generic smog not just ships:
https://theicct.org/blogs/staff/black-carbon-bringing-heat-arctic
As usual, when you give the above an inch, they take the planet. So now, not content with advocating a hard left economic model to control carbon emissions - by sheer coincidence the same model they would favour even if climate change had never existed - they're now crowbarring in all their 'social justice' preoccupations into the climate debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/no-climate-action-cant-be-separated-from-social-justice
https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2019/12/climate-change-indigenous-activism-fight-justice-191210001830786.html
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-15/starmer-sets-out-vision-to-take-labour-back-to-power-with-moral-socialism/
But wait a minute - I thought that climate change was an existential threat to the survival of the human race? So why exactly has the left decided to jam in all their most extreme economic and social policies when they should know damned well that this will alienate the majority of the population who are no fans of such things, and will thus doom action on climate change to failure?
It's almost as if they see climate change as a useful mechanism to get around the lack of democratic consent for their ideologies, rather than as a threat to our collective existence that needs a cross-party consensus to be solved...
"Are you arguing with thermometers" ffs.