politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week goes by and the main polling news is that Remain voters
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week goes by and the main polling news is that Remain voters are much more relaxed about gay sex than Brexiters
Wikipedia
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2017.html
There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-may-not-be-dead-yet-but-it-is-certainly-unwell-1.3171444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018
Has a decent summary of prediction sites.
Manchin is a massive outlier in that he is a safe Dem in a Republican area.
If you take the predictions of the four websites and take out all those that have no tossup rating...
You get Democrat defences in West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana. (I think WV is safe but anyway...) Republican defence in Nevada only.
I think Arizona will be in play though. This article sets out why Arizona may be shifting left:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hey-democrats-maybe-you-should-run-someone-against-jeff-flake/
Flake has poor approval ratings personally. And not convinced he is triangulating well, criticizing Trump but backing all 3 Obamacare repeal votes strikes me as ruling out any potential Dem support, but also irritating Trump fans.
The narrative is shaping up to be wrong all over again - I wouldn't be too surprised if May continues for quite some time and that Corbyn never makes it to Number 10.
Different matter of course when the Election was really on.
Here's an analogy: you own a buy to let property with a mortgage and your rent comfortably covers your interest payments and other costs. Both the rental income and the interest payments are fairly predictable into the future.
Now imagine a government regulator comes along and says you need to get your BTL property valued every 3 years, and if you're in negative equity you need to stump up additional mortgage payments now to make good the difference. Those additional payments result in your rental income no longer covering all your costs, so your BTL ceases to be viable.
That seems to be the approach we've been taking with final salary schemes.
I think this was the allegation:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
Mr Stenge said the M16 machine gun was an "absolute war weapon" and said the gunman appeared to know how to handle it.
The 34-year-old had come to police attention twice in the past, police said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40770258
I'm pretty fed up with the whole pension thing. I have worked in private and public sectors and my private pension nearly got destroyed by Equitable Life and now my public one which is USS seems to be in trouble.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/theresa-may-spending-holiday-planning-next-disaster-20170728133007
I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
But I'm way worse than all of those: I am (or at least was) a long-distance walker. I'd lift a rucksack onto my back and go out for weeks at at time, with only my thoughts and the radio for company.
Boring? Not in the least.
Also people night be OK with them adopting and fostering but not actually having sex which some believe to be a sin.
A must read.
You can see the scientists' point, of course. I think that on the best case the evidence for the AGW bundle of beliefs is less than 1% as strong as the evidence that, e.g., smoking causes cancer, because climate science can only try to model the one unique and highly complex system, whereas Doll had thousands of little systems to look at, all of them genetically constrained to be functionally almost identical to each other, and with a good spread of the 4 combinations of smoker yes/no, lung cancer yes/no. The average head of state may not even think the smoking/cancer link proven, so if you tell him your thesis is less than 1% as certain as Doll's, no one will pay you any attention. So you exaggerate. I just get bored of plus royaliste que le roi useful idiots telling me that things are science, when they aren't.
As for joining the Euro, that's one of the reasons they now have the upper hand in a negotiation of existential significance with the UK.
I get that climate change is happening, that carbon is likely to be a contributing factor, but I've not seen anywhere a stronger argument than "we produce carbon therefore it's our fault" for the A in AGW?
But then one of my favorite pastimes, chess, is hardly the world's greatest spectator sport.
Each to his and her own.
Also, my next blog features your favourite historical character. Probably post it next week.
He's repressed and fighting his urge for the Fleshy Veined Man Sausage.
From the classic "Some Fruits of Solitude", well worth worth the 99p on the kindle store.
Funding dries up if you veer from the loudest voices.
That's the biggest problem we have.
There are litigimate reasons for the data to be adjusted due to the collection site being moved, an airport built next to it etc etc etc. The claim was that the people at UEA were shall we say over compensating this data. everybodies models use it, so if it was the case, garbage in garbage out.
The issues therefore become how much mankind is altering the climate, what the effects of the man-made portion of the alteration will be, and the costs of preventing it. In this, I see a great deal of hot air and alarm aided by vigorous hand-waving.
I treat much of the science we see about this with a healthy amount of scepticism. There is massive funding behind pro-AGW science now, and if you want to get funding you produce more alarmist papers. This s a major issue for all science: too often, you have to chase the funding.
I prefer to look beyond these arguments. What we actually have is a great opportunity. If the world plays this right (which is not guaranteed), then we could end up with an energy infrastructure that is far more robust and localised (i.e. less dependent on oil and gas), and a much more healthy living environment (which might make the improvements since the Clean Air Act appear trifling).
IMO they're objectives that are worth aiming for.
"Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans."
Natural production = 770 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions
Human production = 39 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
One of PB's resident scientists can I am sure correct me on this, thanks in advance.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/08/tim-farrons-gay-best-friend-defends-lib-dem-leader-on-lgbt-rights/amp/
It is encouraging to see that the "socially conservative" working class in the regions are pretty much as accepting as everyone else. It would be interesting to see a correction for age and ethnicity, but it seems that it is not just TSE who is gay friendly:
The percentage of Muslim Americans accepting the normality of homosexuality has gone from 27% to 52% in a decade. I haven't seen an equivalent UK survey, but I suspect that the same trend is ongoing here. Indeed the US Muslim figure is not out of line with the yougov above:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html
While climate scientists are accused of feeling for their wallets, the links between AGW deniers and the fossil fuel industry are far more blatent.
Like JJ, I think sustainable clean energy is a worthy goal in itself, independent of the discussion of AGW itself.
On top of that, however, it is good to try to understand what's going on.
Trouble with climate change is that what I call the "ratchet effect", whereby we selectively seek apparently confirming "evidence" for our preconceived notions, operates powerfully. Anecdotal "evidence" is an example. This flies in the face of the scientific method, but it's rife. I am here ignoring calculated dishonesty, a'la Trump say.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/30/dont-raise-taxes-middle-income-families-conservative-mps-warn/
If you put in unchanging data it would still show a rise.
https://www.urban.co.uk/landlord-university/landlord-news/well-represented-in-westminster-1-in-5-mps-are-landlords/
"Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
Utterly pathetic barrel scraping
https://twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/891740381737562112
This doesn't apply to banks with more that three-quarters of their staff overseas. So they specifically *won't* have more than a small satellite office. It means 175 staff there maximum.
In the olden days such sinners used to self-flagellate to cleanse the mind and the soul. Perhaps he should show his back and prove that he doesn't?
As was the abuse heaped on Tim Farron for innocuous views.
Figures from the leading children’s charity show the number of counselling sessions it has provided for youngsters has trebled in five years.
Children face violence, bullying and threats from adults pressing them to marry someone they do not want to and, in some cases, have never met.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/30/nspcc-reports-large-rise-rise-in-forced-marriage-counselling-for-children
But it beats another evening on bloody AGW
Which I think is one more than for FGM
There's also a gender difference too: more men than women saying that it's not natural.
Still. lets wring our hands over attitudes to gay sex and pretend that children aren't being abused in certain "communities"
I thought that even in the eighties I was fairly liberal on these things, but certainly my own views have become more liberal still.
It is hard to believe that it was just 5 years ago that Gay marriage was so controversial, but having seen how happy it makes some friends of mine, it now appears to be quite unremarkeable, except to the loving couples themselves.
What does Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Vine do exactly which is so different from Jane Hill etc. ?
1. Sea level changes caused by thermal expansion of water.
2. Ocean heat content data.
I can't think of any reasonable explanation for how the oceans might have gotten warmer (over periods of time longer than about three years), without the earth as a whole having gotten warmer.
This is yet another area of modern society where people have forgotten that toleration literally means to put up with something, rather than be an enthusiast for it. The PC brigade don't believe you can really be the former without the latter.