SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
"Pubic hair is back ladies. The men don't care and the women can't be bothered A new study shows many women can no longer be bothered to keep up the grooming down there and that men don't really care if their girlfriend or wife is sporting a Bobby Ball-style-bush. Beverley Turner celebrates the demise of pubic topiary."
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
Reminds me slightly of this PD James book, although that was set in Norfolk:
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
@SeanT - what about the Dengie Peninsula? Some of my brother's work colleagues live there and he says it's surprisingly isolated and deprived, considering it's really not that far from London.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
Reminds me slightly of this PD James book, although that was set in Norfolk:
Phew. Doesn't sound TOO much like mine. You had me worried there. That's always the problem when you think you have arrived at a decent plot - someone else has got there first.
Well obviously it wasn't going to be that much like anything you might write: she was born in 1920 after all.
I like the look of David Lammy if he runs. Good speaker, in touch with lots of London issues. People seem to like him, has respect from across the spectrum. Seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Cambridge also has a very good branch of WH Smith.
An American scientist has discovered that the efficacy of drugs diminishes over time, EVEN FOR FIRST TIME USERS. There is no scientific explanation why this happens, but it does. Similarly, this same scientist has discovered that the more you replicate an experiment, the less impressive your results - even if the underlying theory is deemed 'valid'.
Sounds like selection bias where you only bother replicating the experiment if it showed something interesting in the first place...
OR it is a quantum effect, a Heisenberg effect, the mere act of conscious observation alters reality.
.
That's not what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says. Though it is one (extreme) interpretation of a strange aspect of quantum behaviour, granted.
Got a link to this Cosmic Ether thing or whatever it is?
Heisenberg himself elided the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
The Scientific Method is rubbish, or God is on Poppers (see what I did there?) - you decide.
No. The Uncertainty Principle is about the fundamental nature of particles.
It says that the more you "know" about one property of a particle (such as its speed) the less you "know" about other properties (such as its location). That's just the way nature is at a quantum level.
Despite misunderstanding and speculation surrounding it, it's nothing to do with the act of human observation.
In any case, you're invoking science to try to undermine science. Might be a good flight of imagination for a Dan Brown novel, but it's a logical wormhole if you carry on. Or, to put it less politely, you're talking complete bollox!
This Brixton quasi-slavery case is one of those things which was always going to come out of the woodwork eventually. Most likely, the alleged couple in question were stuck in the 1970s, unable to come to terms with the end of the Soviet Union, and so turned inwards on the weaker members of the "collective". Truly bizarre.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
Reminds me slightly of this PD James book, although that was set in Norfolk:
Phew. Doesn't sound TOO much like mine. You had me worried there. That's always the problem when you think you have arrived at a decent plot - someone else has got there first.
Have you seen the episode of Frasier in which Martin befriends Frasier and Niles' favourite author?
This Brixton quasi-slavery case is one of those things which was always going to come out of the woodwork eventually. Most likely, the alleged couple in question were stuck in the 1970s, unable to come to terms with the end of the Soviet Union, and so turned inwards on the weaker members of the "collective". Truly bizarre.
Earlier than that.....they went into shock when Mao died...but were looking forward to liberation by the PLA, any moment soon....if it wasn't tragic it would be deeply funny....Owen Jones is on alert for 'smears of the left from the Trollograph'.....
I can second Sizewell to Dunwich - one of my favourite stretches of East Anglian coast. Dunwich Heath with the heather empurpled is superb. Add in the church bells that are still said to ring out to sea, and you have a magical spot. Mind you, there are rumours that a certain beast has been known to pitch his tent in that area... ;-)
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
Cambridge is stunning. One of the most amazing places on earth. A church built by Cnut stands ten yards from a pub where they announced the discovery of DNA about ONE THOUSAND YEARS later. Just incredible. And full of moody beautiful smart kids and bicycles and sex and sad loveliness and that river and that chapel... if I can't make it sing I am an arse.
Fairy nuff. I'm just a bit blasé about it as I've lived hereabouts too long. The grass is always greener ...
It is the only place I've ever been where I've walked into a pub and started chatting to a stranger about particle physics. So perhaps you are right.
I can still recommend Bury, though.
As for atmospheric areas around Cambridge, there's the Devil's Dyke and the various allegedly Roman-era lodes, or the certainly-Roman Carr Dyke, which was a canal from Cambridge to Lincoln.
It might be quite fun to build in something about Thetford Chase and Grime's Graves, with the added bonus that you might be able to get some exoticism in through the large Portuguese community in and around Thetford.
Harsh but pretty much fair, ISTM. Is 'it's all a smear from those nasty smearing Conservatives' the best response that Miliband and co. can come up with?
Although Cambridge is mostly attractive, I think Bill Bryson was right to castigate the horrible concrete developments that were somehow permitted in the centre of the city. Some of them have been pulled down recently thankfully.
The Brixton case is the sort of thing that Ruth Rendell might have put in one of her books.
For years I didn't read Ruth Rendell because people gave the impression she was a trashy novelist. Actually she's one of the finest writers around IMO, especially when writing as Barbara Vine.
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
Reminds me slightly of this PD James book, although that was set in Norfolk:
Phew. Doesn't sound TOO much like mine. You had me worried there. That's always the problem when you think you have arrived at a decent plot - someone else has got there first.
And there is the 'House in the Clouds' at Thorpeness
SeanT if you're after something haunting, desolate and memorable that is relatively little written about, how about the Suffolk coast between Sizewell and Dunwich? You have the juxtaposition of modern nuclear England and a hamlet that is the remains of what was once England's sixth biggest town that was lost to the sea. And a very beautiful, remote coast as well.
Sounds good. I will drive and see. A cold cold winter on the Suffolk Coast. A woman and a precognitive child, stuck in a house, an academic husband away working in Cambridge. Freezing mist off the sea. Ooooh.
It's getting there. This precogitive/cosmic habituation thing has just cherried the whole thing, tied it all neatly together, almost as if it were pre-ordained in a non-random universe.
*does little self-satisfied shiver*
Reminds me slightly of this PD James book, although that was set in Norfolk:
Phew. Doesn't sound TOO much like mine. You had me worried there. That's always the problem when you think you have arrived at a decent plot - someone else has got there first.
And there is the 'House in the Clouds' at Thorpeness
Thorpeness is weird, but nicely so. A less acid-derived Portmeirion, one family's fantasy village. It makes you realise that sometimes we should throw planning laws into the fire and let people with imagination just build.
No. The Uncertainty Principle is about the fundamental nature of particles.
snip
"The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[1]"
snip
Now, who do I find more interesting and enlightening on the ramifications of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, the century's greatest quantum physicist, or "R0berts" from pb? Hmm.
*uncertain smile*
Think I'll watch the Borgias, ta all the same.
Hehe you realise that wiki line backs up my point, yes?
Read on, you'll see what I mean.
Heisenberg speculated that interference (note, this could be a single electron, nothing to do with humans) might be responsible for the lack of certainty about a quantum particles nature.
That's since been disproved. Yet the Uncertainty Principle remains fully intact.
Here's something for starters.
Yet the uncertainty principle comes in two superficially similar formulations that even many practicing physicists tend to confuse. Werner Heisenberg's own version is that in observing the world, we inevitably disturb it. And that is wrong, as a research team at the Vienna University of Technology has now vividly demonstrated.
Led by Yuji Hasegawa, the team prepared a stream of neutrons and measured two spin components simultaneously for each, in direct violation of Heisenberg's version of the principle. Yet, the alternative variation continued to hold
"To my shame, and against my principles, I have occasionally agreed to appear on television, though even less frequently than I have been asked. I have found those who work for TV broadcasting companies to be the most disagreeable people that I have ever encountered. I far preferred the criminals whom I encountered in my work as a prison doctor, who were more honest and upright than TV people.
In my experience, TV people are as lying, insincere, obsequious, unscrupulous, fickle, exploitative, shallow, cynical, untrustworthy, treacherous, dishonest, mercenary, low, and untruthful a group of people as is to be found on the face of this Earth. They make the average Western politician seem like a moral giant. By comparison with them, Mr. Madoff was a model of probity and Iago was Othello’s best friend. I am prepared to admit that there may be—even are—exceptions, as there are exceptions good or bad in every human group, but there is something about the evil little screen that would sully a saint and sanctify a monster.
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
I think I might set my thriller in Cambridge, and somewhere REALLY spooky in East Anglia. Does anyone know any freaky places in East Anglia (that haven't been used by writers yet)?
If you haven't read in Dorothy L Sayers 'The Nine Tailors' does spooky Fenland well.....
That's my problem, Fenland and Borley (ta, antifrank) etc are all a bit obvious - they are fab, but they've been used. I need somewhere slightly less obv, but just as ghoulish. Not that I'm asking for much.
How about an abandoned American cold war airbase.....with a dark past no one wants to talk about....
Gibraltar Farm at Tempsford. You need to go there. It figured, I think, as a airfield to drop WW2 agents in the continent. It lies on an ancient footpath, some of which is Roman.I expect it's well described on the web. When I walked through there years ago I found deeply moving the old barn with its home-made memorial to the ones who never returned.
I suspect that Sean T is thinking more of the measurement problem and the Copenhagen interpretation. Both types of the uncertainty principle agree with the quantum jitters, but maybe it's the probability wave of Schrodinger that is so mind-boggling.
Anyway, as you say, quantum theory is just weird. I can't say I'm too impressed with the various types of multiverses. A theory you can never prove or really test.
I still struggle to get my head round infinity, though. And dark energy and matter showed we knew bugger all about the 5% of the matter in the universe we knew about.
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
Duncan Sandys was never an EEC Commissioner.
No. The UK's fiorst commissioners were George Thompson (Labour) and Christopher Soames (Tory). At that time there were only 9 EU members and larger states got two commissioners , It went down to one as the EU expanded.
O/T: In response to MalcolmG (FPT): I was not making a comment about you or your attitude to mental illness just a general comment given that it appeared to be being discussed in the news. Stress - particularly severe stress - can lead to mental illness and people are often reluctant to admit to problems, possibly because the reaction of some can be so dismissive or unsympathetic.
the unfounded rubbish Carlotta was posting
'mentally ill and drunk' Carlotta according to you eh? Such a charmer!
More lies , the words used were tired and emotional,
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
Duncan Sandys was never an EEC Commissioner.
I stand corrected for my expedient description and poor recollection. How about this from wiki:
He served as Leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe and Western European Union until 1972 when he announced his retirement
Either way given the above and he was one of the founders of the British European Movement after WWII whichever way you frame it he was dripping in Europhilia.
I suspect that Sean T is thinking more of the measurement problem and the Copenhagen interpretation. Both types of the uncertainty principle agree with the quantum jitters, but maybe it's the probability wave of Schrodinger that is so mind-boggling.
Anyway, as you say, quantum theory is just weird. I can't say I'm too impressed with the various types of multiverses. A theory you can never prove or really test.
I still struggle to get my head round infinity, though. And dark energy and matter showed we knew bugger all about the 5% of the matter in the universe we knew about.
Are multiverses even science? I can't decide. Sometimes I think you might as well shout "God did it!" if it's not directly testable now.
But sometimes I think if some variations of multiverses are testable, in theory, (which they are, if indirectly perhaps) then of course it's science, what's all the fuss about.
@MSmithsonPB: Calling @DPJHodges Any developments on the CON "incumbency poll" you reported uncritically? Do you think it existed or were you sold a pup?
Dan Hodges lives in a parallel multiverse, where there's a billion point swing to the Tories in marginals when you mention Ed Miliband's name, just because God - or his Tory "insider" mate - says so.
I hope Mike and the other esteemed psephologists who have taken up this issue with the little pr!ck don't let it drop.
No. The Uncertainty Principle is about the fundamental nature of particles.
snip
"The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[1]"
snip
Now, who do I find more interesting and enlightening on the ramifications of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, the century's greatest quantum physicist, or "R0berts" from pb? Hmm.
*uncertain smile*
Think I'll watch the Borgias, ta all the same.
Hehe you realise that wiki line backs up my point, yes?
Read on, you'll see what I mean.
Heisenberg speculated that interference (note, this could be a single electron, nothing to do with humans) might be responsible for the lack of certainty about a quantum particles nature.
That's since been disproved. Yet the Uncertainty Principle remains fully intact.
Here's something for starters.
snip.
But this is just further Proof of the Decline Effect, and Cosmic Habituation: the original, empirically proven truth of Heisenberg's Principle, and the Observer Effect, is now eroded by diminishing returns in the laboratory. Just like Bem's experiments and theories of precognition.
No matter which way you go, I win.
I LOVE Cosmic Habituation.
No. The whole point is the idea that HUMAN observation, uniquely, can alter fundamental reality - has been speculated on (though not by Heisenberg, let's get that one straight) but shown to be bollox.
I agree that "either way you win", mind. Which just serves to put your Cosmic Ether Waves and Lay Lines, Man Theory into the scientific dustbin. Like shouting "God did it!".
Hehe you realise that wiki line backs up my point, yes?
Read on, you'll see what I mean.
Heisenberg speculated that interference (note, this could be a single electron, nothing to do with humans) might be responsible for the lack of certainty about a quantum particles nature.
That's since been disproved. Yet the Uncertainty Principle remains fully intact.
Here's something for starters.
Yet the uncertainty principle comes in two superficially similar formulations that even many practicing physicists tend to confuse. Werner Heisenberg's own version is that in observing the world, we inevitably disturb it. And that is wrong, as a research team at the Vienna University of Technology has now vividly demonstrated.
Led by Yuji Hasegawa, the team prepared a stream of neutrons and measured two spin components simultaneously for each, in direct violation of Heisenberg's version of the principle. Yet, the alternative variation continued to hold
But this is just further Proof of the Decline Effect, and Cosmic Habituation: the original, empirically proven truth of Heisenberg's Principle, and the Observer Effect, is now eroded by diminishing returns in the laboratory. Just like Bem's experiments and theories of precognition.
No matter which way you go, I win.
I LOVE Cosmic Habituation.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't just an experimental result; it's a mathematical theorem, and as such cannot be eroded. It's interpretation can shift, but mathematical truth is eternal.
So long as there are pairs of observables which do not commute (that is A times B doesn't equal B times A), they cannot both have definite values, which isn't really that surprising. After all, if they could both have definite values, those values would commute.
In general, the extent to which variables don't commute is governed by Planck's constant - if it were zero, everything would commute, classical physics would be true, and all atoms would collapse in a burst of X-rays.
Your Decline Effect would seem to predict that the measured value of Planck's constant should be falling towards zero. It isn't. Measurements have grown more accurate over time, but there has been no systematic decline.
I suspect that Sean T is thinking more of the measurement problem and the Copenhagen interpretation. Both types of the uncertainty principle agree with the quantum jitters, but maybe it's the probability wave of Schrodinger that is so mind-boggling.
Anyway, as you say, quantum theory is just weird. I can't say I'm too impressed with the various types of multiverses. A theory you can never prove or really test.
I still struggle to get my head round infinity, though. And dark energy and matter showed we knew bugger all about the 5% of the matter in the universe we knew about.
Are multiverses even science? I can't decide. Sometimes I think you might as well shout "God did it!" if it's not directly testable now.
But sometimes I think if some variations of multiverses are testable, in theory, (which they are, if indirectly perhaps) then of course it's science, what's all the fuss about.
You're behind the times. Scientists discovered, supposedly, the first ever empirical evidence for the multiverse, just recently.
Hehe you realise that wiki line backs up my point, yes?
Read on, you'll see what I mean.
Heisenberg speculated that interference (note, this could be a single electron, nothing to do with humans) might be responsible for the lack of certainty about a quantum particles nature.
That's since been disproved. Yet the Uncertainty Principle remains fully intact.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't just an experimental result; it's a mathematical theorem, and as such cannot be eroded. It's interpretation can shift, but mathematical truth is eternal.
So long as there are pairs of observables which do not commute (that is A times B doesn't equal B times A), they cannot both have definite values, which isn't really that surprising. After all, if they could both have definite values, those values would commute.
In general, the extent to which variables don't commute is governed by Planck's constant - if it were zero, everything would commute, classical physics would be true, and all atoms would collapse in a burst of X-rays.
Your Decline Effect would seem to predict that the measured value of Planck's constant should be falling towards zero. It isn't. Measurements have grown more accurate over time, but there has been no systematic decline.
Think of a quantum entity as a Tory / UKIP floater.
It has a fixed amount of rage about Europe and Furreners. If you try to hold constant its anger at Europe, its rage at Furreners will only increase to compensate, and vice versa.
You can't simultaneously control its level of anger at Europe or at Furreners, one has to change if you do, because its OVERALL level of rage is fixed by the fundamental laws of nature. It's nothing to do with the pollster measuring it, it's just the way it is!
But this is just further Proof of the Decline Effect, and Cosmic Habituation: the original, empirically proven truth of Heisenberg's Principle, and the Observer Effect, is now eroded by diminishing returns in the laboratory. Just like Bem's experiments and theories of precognition.
No matter which way you go, I win.
I LOVE Cosmic Habituation.
Your Decline Effect would seem to predict that the measured value of Planck's constant should be falling towards zero. It isn't. Measurements have grown more accurate over time, but there has been no systematic decline.
Despite being drunk, I am aware of this. 2 + 2 is not going to equal 3 no matter how much "decline" is genetically bred into the Scientific Method. I was teasing.
However ignoring the serious implications of Cosmic Habituation, or the Decline Effect, is daft - even if it is just down to selection bias and confirmation bias and emotional human failure. It's particularly serious as it has been discovered across all sciences, not just the really gay ones like sociology.
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
And that's presuming that Cosmic Habituation is just human error. It could be something much more fundamental - something more like the Observer Effect. Who knows. Not you. Not me. Quantum physics is easily weird enough already.
BTW The Borgias is brill. Recommended.
I thought you were a thriller writer, not a bloody scientific expert"
SeanT - As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline
The data underpinning climate science is not weakening, it's strengthening. Considerably.
And I've never heard the situation you describe called the "Decline Effect" before. For your homework this week, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
"He is absolutely right about TV people. They are the worst: much worse than journalists, or writers, or movie people. They are even worse than - horror - advertising people"
I know many in each of the professions you mention and I can say without hesitation that the most imaginative and amusing of all the above are advertising people. (The 'nicest' are movie people)
(I should say that I don't consider myself to be one-I'm a photographer who went on to direct commercials written and conceived by advertising creatives).
The more scientists find out about the universe, the more baffling, huge and unknowable it appears.
We are doing nothing much more than illustrating our own ignorance.
I couldn't disagree more.
With all these advancements and discoveries and theories, even the most baffling ones, we are showing how spectacularly clever and inquisitive and generally ace we are.
My theory on this Decline Effect in medication is that after a certain amount of usage by the population it gets into the water supply and therefore people start taking small amounts of it without realising it.
This means they become less receptive to taking larger doses of it when prescribed later on.
I see Nusrat Ghani has changed her name to Nusrat Wheeldon since 2010. Couldn't be anything to do with trying to get selected in the NIMBY shandybelt could it?
"we are showing how spectacularly clever and inquisitive and generally ace we are."
We are, but in 1900, we knew more than we do now (or we thought we did). Goodbye to a deterministic universe, hello relativity, quantum theory, and dark matter and energy. And has mathematics tamed infinity yet?
"we are showing how spectacularly clever and inquisitive and generally ace we are."
We are, but in 1900, we knew more than we do now (or we thought we did). Goodbye to a deterministic universe, hello relativity, quantum theory, and dark matter and energy. And has mathematics tamed infinity yet?
The politics of the payday loan cap is that the government does something popular and Labour are just a footnote - second item on the BBC news and Creasy gets 10 seconds at the end of a 3 minute piece. Sucks being in opposition sometimes.
SeanT - As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline
The data underpinning climate science is not weakening, it's strengthening. Considerably.
And I've never heard the situation you describe called the "Decline Effect" before. For your homework this week, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
Weakening data: snip
The situation you describe (grants and consensus etc) is long discussed, starting from Kuhn. It's not new.
But the prevailing theories* about climate aren't being weakened by new data and amended accordingly by consensual scientists. On the contrary, they're being strengthened.
*that greenhouse gases cause warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 concentrations have risen, that human activity alone explains the observed rise in CO2 levels, that warming is occurring, that no other mechanism explains the level of warming observed apart from increasing CO2 levels, and so on.
"Aravindan Balakrishnan and his clique were suspended from the Party because of their pursuance of conspiratorial and splittist activities and because of their spreading social fascist slanders against the Party and the proletarian movement.
The Central Committee regretted that, after 7 years of struggle to unite together in order to strengthen the proletarian revolutionary movement, and especially its proletarian headquarters, Aravindan Balakrishnan had unilaterally and without consultation attempted to destroy all the established unity instead of trying to strengthen it, had set himself up against the proletarian Party and violated all discipline, and had launched an entirely unprovoked and thoroughly unprincipled external attack on the Party."
A sports Minister with no knowledge of sport? Blimey, that never happened under Labour or Blair did it?
It can only really be described as an own goal. Clare Balding, the BBC sports presenter and Evening Standard columnist, pitched the new Minister for Sport Richard Caborn five questions on his chosen topic during a radio interview.
She asked him to name three jockeys riding at Ascot; who is the England cricket coach; three European golfers playing in the US Open; the captain of the Lions rugby squad; and the four semi-finalists in the Stella Artois tennis championship. He failed to answer one correctly.
Here Clare stays on the attack, describing Mr Caborn's performance as an abject failure and his lack of sporting knowledge as embarrassing and pitiable...
My theory on this Decline Effect in medication is that after a certain amount of usage by the population it gets into the water supply and therefore people start taking small amounts of it without realising it.
This means they become less receptive to taking larger doses of it when prescribed later on.
My theory would be the initial research was fraudulent.
Not posting much at the moment. But - sorry if posted: @tnsbmrb: TNS BMRB’s voting intentions polling shows CON 30% (-4), LAB 38% (+2), LD 8% (-1), UKIP 12% (-1), OTHER 11% (+2)
In other news, good to see the site regain some of its mojo - physics and mathematics. Thanks to Roberts and SeanT
Not posting much at the moment. But - sorry if posted: @tnsbmrb: TNS BMRB’s voting intentions polling shows CON 30% (-4), LAB 38% (+2), LD 8% (-1), UKIP 12% (-1), OTHER 11% (+2)
In other news, good to see the site regain some of its mojo - physics and mathematics. Thanks to Roberts and SeanT
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
She has been described as one of the most genuinely nice persons in politics. Which is more than I can say of the kippers that I know.
Not posting much at the moment. But - sorry if posted: @tnsbmrb: TNS BMRB’s voting intentions polling shows CON 30% (-4), LAB 38% (+2), LD 8% (-1), UKIP 12% (-1), OTHER 11% (+2)
In other news, good to see the site regain some of its mojo - physics and mathematics. Thanks to Roberts and SeanT
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
She has been described as one of the most genuinely nice persons in politics. Which is more than I can say of the kippers that I know.
There are nice Kippers, and nasty Kippers. There are nice Conservatives, and nasty Conservatives. There are polite scots nats. and there are inpolite scots nats. There are high members of the Co-operative Party, and there are non-high ones. There are drunk Liberal Democrats, and drunker Liberal Democrats.
Perhaps Ms Sandys would have been better off being selected as the Conservative candidate in somewhere less 'UKIP-py', like Richmond Park, or Hampstead.
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
The politics of the payday loan cap is that the government does something popular and Labour are just a footnote - second item on the BBC news and Creasy gets 10 seconds at the end of a 3 minute piece. Sucks being in opposition sometimes.
So, you agree intervening in the market can be a good thing ? For example, capping energy prices ?
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
Climate science is an extreme case, because it's so political.
There's so much money, and so many people, trying to "disprove" or undermine established climate science that it makes the established theories even more robust.
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
We seem to be on scientific stuff so,was it not Copernicus,who risked his life re the centre of the universe.
So you're in favour of this market interference? Many Tories think it's a sign of Osborne and Camerons intellectual incoherence, how about setting out your views for us.
Different markets, different levels of regulation. One rule for energy, another for moneylending is potentially an entirely coherent position. High energy prices good, high energy prices bad is not.
Now Boris Johnson wants the Americans to intervene in the IndyRef:
... I am appalled that the pro-independence vote is up at 38 per cent. We need someone — the Americans? — to step in as a kind of marriage guidance counsellor and tell us to stop being so damn stupid. Divorce will diminish us both. It will be unutterably wretched and painful, and it will eliminate the most successful political union in history.
A bit of research makes a company a ton of money but later results show roughly half the effect claimed in the initial results that led to the company making a ton of money and the simplest explanation is the cosmos got bored and decided to change human body chemistry for a laugh?
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
We seem to be on scientific stuff so,was it not Copernicus,who risked his life re the centre of the universe.
Copernicus said it before Galileo, but it was Galileo who faced the Inquisition.
The thing is, AGW isn't a universal theory, it is a proposition about one particular aspect of one particular complex system. You could say the same of heliocentricity, but heliocentricity is only one step away from developing a universal theory of gravity. AGW if proven = so what?
AGW is also highly unlikely to be the universally held theory it is made out to be. We hear that 98.9999% of Ther Scientists agree about it, but science isn't like that. Most climate scientists are likely to be researching something as specific as the severity of winters in the American mid-west, 1880-1887. Big picture science is something they do, if at all, in their spare time. And if they want to be confident of the next research grant/university job they keep any doubts they have as to the prevailing orthodoxy very, very quiet indeed. That's how academia works.
What we all want to see, of course, is the advice Ed the Consistent must surely have received from scientists which has caused him to reverse his position on higher energy bills in the last three years.
A married couple suspected of holding three women as slaves for more than 30 years are former Maoist activists Aravindan Balakrishnan and his wife Chanda, the BBC understands
What the chances the whole household voted Labour with the speed and efficiency of the postal vote!! Shocking story really and shouldn't jest but this is PB..
The politics of the payday loan cap is that the government does something popular and Labour are just a footnote - second item on the BBC news and Creasy gets 10 seconds at the end of a 3 minute piece. Sucks being in opposition sometimes.
So, you agree intervening in the market can be a good thing ? For example, capping energy prices ?
Yes of course. Capping energy prices is not the same as freezing them though
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
We seem to be on scientific stuff so,was it not Copernicus,who risked his life re the centre of the universe.
. And if they want to be confident of the next research grant/university job they keep any doubts they have as to the prevailing orthodoxy very, very quiet indeed. That's how academia works.
Well of course, if you want to apply for a grant to investigate whether the moon is a grapefruit in the shape of a trombone, good luck to you.
But you would have a good chance of getting funding for credible "alternative" climate theories, because there's so much sloshing around from vested interests.
Problem is, there aren't really any credible alternative theories despite all the time, funding and effort that's gone into developing them.
As several on here have suggested, climate science seems like a prime candidate for the Decline Effect: tons of emotional investment, massive pressure to produce papers that confirm the consensus, etc etc, yet weakening data out there, however much you "hide the decline".
I'm sure there is 'groupthink' in scientific circles, not least because (so I gather) it's difficult to get funding for research that doesn't fit within the established consensus.
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
We seem to be on scientific stuff so,was it not Copernicus,who risked his life re the centre of the universe.
. And if they want to be confident of the next research grant/university job they keep any doubts they have as to the prevailing orthodoxy very, very quiet indeed. That's how academia works.
Well of course, if you want to apply for a grant to investigate whether the moon is a grapefruit in the shape of a trombone, good luck to you.
But you would have a good chance of getting funding for credible "alternative" climate theories, because there's so much sloshing around from vested interests.
Problem is, there aren't really any credible alternative theories despite all the time, funding and effort that's gone into developing them.
The climategate emails describe in great details how sceptic scientists were shut out of the peer review process.
Ha! Question re. Sudan on University Challenge seemed to forget that South Sudan became independent a couple of years ago (Kenya does not border what remains of Sudan).
Comments
A new study shows many women can no longer be bothered to keep up the grooming down there and that men don't really care if their girlfriend or wife is sporting a Bobby Ball-style-bush. Beverley Turner celebrates the demise of pubic topiary."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10452327/Pubic-hair-is-back-ladies.-The-men-dont-care-and-the-women-cant-be-bothered.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devices_and_Desires
http://www.hiddenengland.com.ar/dunwich.htm
There are also some very nice pubs in nearby Southwold.
As for Cambridge: I love the place, but there's not much aside from the town-versus-gown antipathy. Bury St Edmunds might be better, with the ruined abbey, the massacre of Jews, links to the Magna Carta and witch trials. It's also less-well known.
It says that the more you "know" about one property of a particle (such as its speed) the less you "know" about other properties (such as its location). That's just the way nature is at a quantum level.
Despite misunderstanding and speculation surrounding it, it's nothing to do with the act of human observation.
In any case, you're invoking science to try to undermine science. Might be a good flight of imagination for a Dan Brown novel, but it's a logical wormhole if you carry on. Or, to put it less politely, you're talking complete bollox!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0582326/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100247568/sorry-ed-miliband-but-the-revelations-about-the-co-op-arent-smears-theyre-true/
It is the only place I've ever been where I've walked into a pub and started chatting to a stranger about particle physics. So perhaps you are right.
I can still recommend Bury, though.
As for atmospheric areas around Cambridge, there's the Devil's Dyke and the various allegedly Roman-era lodes, or the certainly-Roman Carr Dyke, which was a canal from Cambridge to Lincoln.
For years I didn't read Ruth Rendell because people gave the impression she was a trashy novelist. Actually she's one of the finest writers around IMO, especially when writing as Barbara Vine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25084013
http://takimag.com/article/television_is_an_evil_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz2lJiPTUjw
Read on, you'll see what I mean.
Heisenberg speculated that interference (note, this could be a single electron, nothing to do with humans) might be responsible for the lack of certainty about a quantum particles nature.
That's since been disproved. Yet the Uncertainty Principle remains fully intact.
Here's something for starters.
Yet the uncertainty principle comes in two superficially similar formulations that even many practicing physicists tend to confuse. Werner Heisenberg's own version is that in observing the world, we inevitably disturb it. And that is wrong, as a research team at the Vienna University of Technology has now vividly demonstrated.
Led by Yuji Hasegawa, the team prepared a stream of neutrons and measured two spin components simultaneously for each, in direct violation of Heisenberg's version of the principle. Yet, the alternative variation continued to hold
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-not-dead
Now, who to believe, etc etc...
"To my shame, and against my principles, I have occasionally agreed to appear on television, though even less frequently than I have been asked. I have found those who work for TV broadcasting companies to be the most disagreeable people that I have ever encountered. I far preferred the criminals whom I encountered in my work as a prison doctor, who were more honest and upright than TV people.
In my experience, TV people are as lying, insincere, obsequious, unscrupulous, fickle, exploitative, shallow, cynical, untrustworthy, treacherous, dishonest, mercenary, low, and untruthful a group of people as is to be found on the face of this Earth. They make the average Western politician seem like a moral giant. By comparison with them, Mr. Madoff was a model of probity and Iago was Othello’s best friend. I am prepared to admit that there may be—even are—exceptions, as there are exceptions good or bad in every human group, but there is something about the evil little screen that would sully a saint and sanctify a monster.
Turn off, tune out, drop completely. "
Nowt wrong with that when it comes to thriller writers I suppose.
Slightly less benign when it comes to homeopaths and other charlatans.
UKIP's first "scalp"?
Conservative MP Laura Sandys has announced she will stand down as an MP at the general election in 2015.
Ms Sandys has represented the Kent constituency of South Thanet since 2010, when she had a majority of 7,617.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25087265
Of course its for family reasons (even though she's only thought about it since Thanet Tories were humilated by UKIP in the County Council elections) and not an exercise in damage limitation but what would it have looked like if Nigel Farage had defeated a Tory MP with a 7.5k majority who just happened to be an A-lister and daughter of a former Tory Minister and the UK's first EEC Commissioner in a seat where Ted Heath was schooled?
I'm sure she'll enjoy her times in the Lords though. Far less pressure there......
I suspect that Sean T is thinking more of the measurement problem and the Copenhagen interpretation. Both types of the uncertainty principle agree with the quantum jitters, but maybe it's the probability wave of Schrodinger that is so mind-boggling.
Anyway, as you say, quantum theory is just weird. I can't say I'm too impressed with the various types of multiverses. A theory you can never prove or really test.
I still struggle to get my head round infinity, though. And dark energy and matter showed we knew bugger all about the 5% of the matter in the universe we knew about.
"Bangkok Hilton" - 1989, starring Nicole Kidman and Denholm Elliot:
Warning - the soundtrack sounds like something from an early 80s computer movie. Also, it's very slow-moving by today's standards:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBXoujnOVfA&list=PL080D2BA53A7B3943
He served as Leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe and Western European Union until 1972 when he announced his retirement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Sandys
Either way given the above and he was one of the founders of the British European Movement after WWII whichever way you frame it he was dripping in Europhilia.
But sometimes I think if some variations of multiverses are testable, in theory, (which they are, if indirectly perhaps) then of course it's science, what's all the fuss about.
I hope Mike and the other esteemed psephologists who have taken up this issue with the little pr!ck don't let it drop.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/RAF-Tempsford-Churchills-Secret-Airfield/dp/1445600714
I agree that "either way you win", mind. Which just serves to put your Cosmic Ether Waves and Lay Lines, Man Theory into the scientific dustbin. Like shouting "God did it!".
So long as there are pairs of observables which do not commute (that is A times B doesn't equal B times A), they cannot both have definite values, which isn't really that surprising. After all, if they could both have definite values, those values would commute.
In general, the extent to which variables don't commute is governed by Planck's constant - if it were zero, everything would commute, classical physics would be true, and all atoms would collapse in a burst of X-rays.
Your Decline Effect would seem to predict that the measured value of Planck's constant should be falling towards zero. It isn't. Measurements have grown more accurate over time, but there has been no systematic decline.
I'm pretty convinced by the multiverse concept personally. I'm just not sure it's actually "science".
Edward Argar
Tony Caldeira
Helen Whately
Nusrat Wheeldon
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/11/the-final-four-in-the-wealden-open-primary-are-named.html
It has a fixed amount of rage about Europe and Furreners. If you try to hold constant its anger at Europe, its rage at Furreners will only increase to compensate, and vice versa.
You can't simultaneously control its level of anger at Europe or at Furreners, one has to change if you do, because its OVERALL level of rage is fixed by the fundamental laws of nature. It's nothing to do with the pollster measuring it, it's just the way it is!
The more scientists find out about the universe, the more baffling, huge and unknowable it appears.
We are doing nothing much more than illustrating our own ignorance.
The data underpinning climate science is not weakening, it's strengthening. Considerably.
And I've never heard the situation you describe called the "Decline Effect" before. For your homework this week, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
@Sean
"He is absolutely right about TV people. They are the worst: much worse than journalists, or writers, or movie people. They are even worse than - horror - advertising people"
I know many in each of the professions you mention and I can say without hesitation that the most imaginative and amusing of all the above are advertising people. (The 'nicest' are movie people)
(I should say that I don't consider myself to be one-I'm a photographer who went on to direct commercials written and conceived by advertising creatives).
With all these advancements and discoveries and theories, even the most baffling ones, we are showing how spectacularly clever and inquisitive and generally ace we are.
This means they become less receptive to taking larger doses of it when prescribed later on.
I'd have thought Edward Argar would be clear favourite out of the four, but we shall see how they perform.
"we are showing how spectacularly clever and inquisitive and generally ace we are."
We are, but in 1900, we knew more than we do now (or we thought we did). Goodbye to a deterministic universe, hello relativity, quantum theory, and dark matter and energy. And has mathematics tamed infinity yet?
Oscar Wilde.
But the prevailing theories* about climate aren't being weakened by new data and amended accordingly by consensual scientists. On the contrary, they're being strengthened.
*that greenhouse gases cause warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 concentrations have risen, that human activity alone explains the observed rise in CO2 levels, that warming is occurring, that no other mechanism explains the level of warming observed apart from increasing CO2 levels, and so on.
"Aravindan Balakrishnan and his clique were suspended from the Party because of their pursuance of conspiratorial and splittist activities and because of their spreading social fascist slanders against the Party and the proletarian movement.
The Central Committee regretted that, after 7 years of struggle to unite together in order to strengthen the proletarian revolutionary movement, and especially its proletarian headquarters, Aravindan Balakrishnan had unilaterally and without consultation attempted to destroy all the established unity instead of trying to strengthen it, had set himself up against the proletarian Party and violated all discipline, and had launched an entirely unprovoked and thoroughly unprincipled external attack on the Party."
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/cpestatements.htm
It can only really be described as an own goal. Clare Balding, the BBC sports presenter and Evening Standard columnist, pitched the new Minister for Sport Richard Caborn five questions on his chosen topic during a radio interview.
She asked him to name three jockeys riding at Ascot; who is the England cricket coach; three European golfers playing in the US Open; the captain of the Lions rugby squad; and the four semi-finalists in the Stella Artois tennis championship. He failed to answer one correctly.
Here Clare stays on the attack, describing Mr Caborn's performance as an abject failure and his lack of sporting knowledge as embarrassing and pitiable...
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/my-quiz-felled-desperate-minister-6338079.html
'Lib Dems now saying Osborne repeatedly tried to block action on payday loans in the past.'
Labour had 13 years without being blocked by anyone,but just couldn't be arsed to do anything.
@tnsbmrb: TNS BMRB’s voting intentions polling shows CON 30% (-4), LAB 38% (+2), LD 8% (-1), UKIP 12% (-1), OTHER 11% (+2)
In other news, good to see the site regain some of its mojo - physics and mathematics. Thanks to Roberts and SeanT
Adios.
Perhaps Ms Sandys would have been better off being selected as the Conservative candidate in somewhere less 'UKIP-py', like Richmond Park, or Hampstead.
How about trying to explain why Labour couldn't be arsed to do anything about payday loans for 13 years?
Was it their intellectual incoherence or that they just didn't give a $hit?
re global warming, do you feel the Koch Brothers climate scepticism was all part of a plan to discredit sceptics generally?
and
if, the velocity of discretionary spending > velocity of loan repayments
then, all lending for consumption is ultimately malign and destructive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427
Did I do that link right?
But on the other hand, one way scientists become legends is by debunking shibboleths - think of Galileo (the earth isn't at the centre of the universe) and Einstein (showing that Newtonian mechanics don't apply at very high speeds). If a scientist cast significant, plausible doubt on anthropogenic climate change, that would be dynamite and would make the scientist(s) concerned world-famous.
'How about trying to explain why Labour couldn't be arsed to do anything about payday loans for 13 years?
Was it their intellectual incoherence or that they just didn't give a $hit?
No answer,there's a surprise.
As I thought, nothing to contribute & no attempt at an explanation.
Why bother?
One party is up 4.
There's so much money, and so many people, trying to "disprove" or undermine established climate science that it makes the established theories even more robust.
Con 28% (-5)
Lab 36% (-1)
UKIP 12% (+1)
LD 11% (nc)
Others 13% (+5)
My guess then it's the blues, though Mike is a LibDem!!
... I am appalled that the pro-independence vote is up at 38 per cent. We need someone — the Americans? — to step in as a kind of marriage guidance counsellor and tell us to stop being so damn stupid. Divorce will diminish us both. It will be unutterably wretched and painful, and it will eliminate the most successful political union in history.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10471540/A-divorce-from-Scotland-would-be-stupid-wretched-and-painful.html
If Washington listens to Boris (unlikely), then Scotland's Christmas has come early.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
Tim Gatt @TimGattITV 1m
Education Sec Michael Gove tells #TheAgenda: "I have the worst taste in music of anyone I know" http://bit.ly/IdvBcw
The thing is, AGW isn't a universal theory, it is a proposition about one particular aspect of one particular complex system. You could say the same of heliocentricity, but heliocentricity is only one step away from developing a universal theory of gravity. AGW if proven = so what?
AGW is also highly unlikely to be the universally held theory it is made out to be. We hear that 98.9999% of Ther Scientists agree about it, but science isn't like that. Most climate scientists are likely to be researching something as specific as the severity of winters in the American mid-west, 1880-1887. Big picture science is something they do, if at all, in their spare time. And if they want to be confident of the next research grant/university job they keep any doubts they have as to the prevailing orthodoxy very, very quiet indeed. That's how academia works.
What we all want to see, of course, is the advice Ed the Consistent must surely have received from scientists which has caused him to reverse his position on higher energy bills in the last three years.
What the chances the whole household voted Labour with the speed and efficiency of the postal vote!! Shocking story really and shouldn't jest but this is PB..
But you would have a good chance of getting funding for credible "alternative" climate theories, because there's so much sloshing around from vested interests.
Problem is, there aren't really any credible alternative theories despite all the time, funding and effort that's gone into developing them.