Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week goes by and the main polling news is that Remain voters

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited July 30 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,182
    edited July 30
    Primero
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,083
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:



    As regards University of East Anglia and the hacked emails:

    "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]"

    And none of that sounds at all fishy to you? 97% of scientists, eight committees - because science is done by head count, isn't it? And does that conclusion not sound at all to you like "not guilty, but don't do it again"?

    From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Because science is all about hiding things, isn't it?

    What has happened is that the world's scientists have decided that AGW is probably a thing, but that if you explained to the likes of Donald Trump the strength of the evidence - i.e., not very) you would get no action at all. So overstate the case. This may be a valid decision, though the precedents aren't ideal - it was, after all, so obvious that Hussein had WMDs that Blix's investigations could be ignored - but the cost is enormous in debauching what is meant by science. I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions. And that is a sad state of affairs.
    " I am quite confident that you would assert enthusiastically that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes, if you were told that 97% of scientists agreed with those propositions."

    ... in which case you are an idiot.
    Science is about measurements, peer review and such like. It's done by human beings, a very few of whom play politics, the vast majority do not.
    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.
    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,984
    Mr. 1000, that being so you could cite other e-mails which prove the use isn't what it seems at first glance.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,006
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,083

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

    That would be a pretty serious offence.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 224
    Half the country is a lot more conservative socially then I or the establishment thought. No way did I think there would be such a wide gap between the two groups on gay sex even when taking in to account the generational gap between Remain and Leave.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,838
    FPT @rcs1000

    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.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 145
    edited July 30
    But the polls are always wrong - with the odd exception which can only be identified in hindsight - so what is the point of them? It could be argued that faulty polls skewed the results of the last two GEs - making it look as though Miliband had a chance and that Corbyn had none.

    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.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,066
    edited July 30
    Polling would be pretty inaccurate now because we all know there's not going to be a GE anytime soon. Remember when the tories were allegedly 20 points clear? It meant little because TM had repeatedly indicated that there wouldn't be a GE any time soon, so respondents were not really thinking it very likely.

    Different matter of course when the Election was really on.
  • chrisbchrisb Posts: 90
    FPT

    chrisb said:



    Low interest rates might have had a negative effect on defined benefit schemes but not defined contribution schemes.

    The casual assumption in the news reports about the USS pensions that someone else, ie the young, need to pay more so that older, richer people get the benefits they were promised is one which is no longer going to be accepted.

    And it may well be that low growth and low interest rates become a permanent feature of the economy.

    ' Only in the golden age after WW2 did average growth top 2%. We must prepare for low growth and the fight for who benefits from its meagre spoils '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/30/slow-economic-growth-gdp-old-norm

    All this talk of the deficit in the USS scheme is misplaced. Cash flow is what's important.

    The USS scheme paid out £1.7bn in pensions last year and it received £1.88bn in contributions from both employees and employers. Investment returns in the form of dividends and interest (i.e. not counting capital gains) brought in another £1.5bn.

    So the scheme is cash flow positive and will probably continue to be cash flow positive for years to come unless they close the scheme to future accrual.

    There is therefore no need for the scheme to sell assets to meet future pension payments, and market movements causing volatility in both asset values, pension liabilities and the deficit are irrelevant. Focusing on those things will probably lead to a lot of wrong decisions being made.
    Unfortunately, these things are what people are focusing on. Indeed, the Trustees may be under legal obligation to deal with the "deficit" (I don't know - I'm no expert on pensions - trying to learn fast as this hits me). The real action will come when the triennial valuation is done later this year/early next year.

    I suspect we will end up with some kind of haircut for future pensioners and also some extra from existing employees and employers.
    Yes the trustees are under that obligation, but it's still misplaced. It's a failing of the regulatory regime and the actuarial profession in my view.

    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.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,006
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

    That would be a pretty serious offence.

    I think this was the allegation:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    The gunman who killed one person at a German nightclub was the Iraqi Kurdish son-in-law of the nightclub's owner, German authorities said.

    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
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,459
    chrisb said:

    FPT

    chrisb said:



    Low interest rates might have had a negative effect on defined benefit schemes but not defined contribution schemes.

    The casual assumption in the news reports about the USS pensions that someone else, ie the young, need to pay more so that older, richer people get the benefits they were promised is one which is no longer going to be accepted.

    And it may well be that low growth and low interest rates become a permanent feature of the economy.

    ' Only in the golden age after WW2 did average growth top 2%. We must prepare for low growth and the fight for who benefits from its meagre spoils '

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/30/slow-economic-growth-gdp-old-norm

    All this talk of the deficit in the USS scheme is misplaced. Cash flow is what's important.

    The USS scheme paid out £1.7bn in pensions last year and it received £1.88bn in contributions from both employees and employers. Investment returns in the form of dividends and interest (i.e. not counting capital gains) brought in another £1.5bn.

    So the scheme is cash flow positive and will probably continue to be cash flow positive for years to come unless they close the scheme to future accrual.

    There is therefore no need for the scheme to sell assets to meet future pension payments, and market movements causing volatility in both asset values, pension liabilities and the deficit are irrelevant. Focusing on those things will probably lead to a lot of wrong decisions being made.
    snip

    I suspect we will end up with some kind of haircut for future pensioners and also some extra from existing employees and employers.
    Yes the trustees are under that obligation, but it's still misplaced. It's a failing of the regulatory regime and the actuarial profession in my view.

    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.
    Yep, it all seems a bit odd and is leading to mistakes and potential closures of schemes that work.

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,816

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886
    nunuone said:

    Half the country is a lot more conservative socially then I or the establishment thought. No way did I think there would be such a wide gap between the two groups on gay sex even when taking in to account the generational gap between Remain and Leave.

    Disraeli's two nations.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    On topic, it's slightly counter-intuitive that more people approve of gay parenting than think gay sex is natural.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,816

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
    And people complain about F1! At least that only lasts two hours (or longer if Kimi has an ice cream).

    I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886
    O/T but I think the brouhaha over Kevin Myers' column in the Sunday Times was ridiculous. His comment was pro-Jewish, not anti-Jewish.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,430

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    I was going to go as well since I'm in London, but looks like the match will be over tonight now.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,066

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
    And people complain about F1! At least that only lasts two hours (or longer if Kimi has an ice cream).

    I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
    You don't fish, I take it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886

    On topic, it's slightly counter-intuitive that more people approve of gay parenting than think gay sex is natural.

    Opinion polls can produce contradictory answers, depending on the way the question is asked.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    edited July 30
    AndyJS said:

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    I was going to go as well since I'm in London, but looks like the match will be over tonight now.
    Knowing my luck it will piss it down for the blast and that get cancelled as well.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    Sean_F said:

    O/T but I think the brouhaha over Kevin Myers' column in the Sunday Times was ridiculous. His comment was pro-Jewish, not anti-Jewish.

    Did you see his earlier articles that resurfaced in which he said that Bruce Springsteen, who is not Jewish, had built his career 'in a very Jewish way', and another in which he said he was a holocaust denier?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,933
    Sean_F said:

    O/T but I think the brouhaha over Kevin Myers' column in the Sunday Times was ridiculous. His comment was pro-Jewish, not anti-Jewish.

    The ST has certainly acted very quickly -- a call from Rupert?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,816

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
    And people complain about F1! At least that only lasts two hours (or longer if Kimi has an ice cream).

    I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
    You don't fish, I take it?
    No.

    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. ;)
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 224
    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 224
    Sean_F said:

    On topic, it's slightly counter-intuitive that more people approve of gay parenting than think gay sex is natural.

    Opinion polls can produce contradictory answers, depending on the way the question is asked.
    Yes they can.

    Also people night be OK with them adopting and fostering but not actually having sex which some believe to be a sin.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,743
    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    They export more to the USA than to the UK.

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,083
    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    Because the bulk of their government debt was foreign currency denominated already. It's very hard for small countries to find themselves domestically, because savers prefer to own international assets. I think you could make a good case they should have joined Sterling, but there may have been some political issues with that.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,234
    nunuone said:

    Sean_F said:

    On topic, it's slightly counter-intuitive that more people approve of gay parenting than think gay sex is natural.

    Opinion polls can produce contradictory answers, depending on the way the question is asked.
    Yes they can.

    Also people night be OK with them adopting and fostering but not actually having sex which some believe to be a sin.
    This is only 'contradictory' because the question asked was if you "personally speaking" think gay sex is natural. For many people the answer will be no on a personal basis, regardless of their views on gay rights.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,530
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,066

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
    And people complain about F1! At least that only lasts two hours (or longer if Kimi has an ice cream).

    I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
    You don't fish, I take it?
    No.

    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. ;)
    Funnily enough, I can relate to that. But I don't get fishing. Or tennis. Even snooker can be a pain to watch, although it's great fun to play.

    But then one of my favorite pastimes, chess, is hardly the world's greatest spectator sport.

    Each to his and her own.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 58,556
    So Brexiteers aren't relaxed about gay sex, poppers might help.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,984
    Mr. Eagles, it's unsurprising to learn that Remain voters love the euro-sausage.

    Also, my next blog features your favourite historical character. Probably post it next week.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886

    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    They export more to the USA than to the UK.

    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.
    The views of the Irish government matter less than the views of the DUP.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,950

    So Brexiteers aren't relaxed about gay sex, poppers might help.

    This Brexiteer is intensely relaxed (as Mandleson would put it) about it :D
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    Sean_F said:

    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    They export more to the USA than to the UK.

    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.
    The views of the Irish government matter less than the views of the DUP.
    The DUP tail may try to wag the dog, but unfortunately it's chosen the wrong dog.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited July 30

    So Brexiteers aren't relaxed about gay sex, poppers might help.

    Arch-Remainer Farron is the most uptight person I can think of on the subject right now.

    He's repressed and fighting his urge for the Fleshy Veined Man Sausage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 58,556

    Mr. Eagles, it's unsurprising to learn that Remain voters love the euro-sausage.

    Also, my next blog features your favourite historical character. Probably post it next week.

    I'm really busy for the next week, so alas my response to all your historical inaccuracies in that post will have to wait, but I look forward to reading it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886

    Sean_F said:

    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    They export more to the USA than to the UK.

    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.
    The views of the Irish government matter less than the views of the DUP.
    The DUP tail may try to wag the dog, but unfortunately it's chosen the wrong dog.
    Not really. The Commons has a right wing majority.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    nunuone said:

    Why did Ireland ever join the euro when their main trading partner stayed out?
    They export more to the USA than to the UK.

    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.
    The views of the Irish government matter less than the views of the DUP.
    The DUP tail may try to wag the dog, but unfortunately it's chosen the wrong dog.
    Not really. The Commons has a right wing majority.
    Perhaps I should have said it's attached to the wrong dog, unlike the Irish government.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,952

    Well I was quite fancying a day out at the cricket tomorrow, not going to be much left (if any).

    Why would you fancy being bored out of your skull watching cricket? ;)
    I am a sucker for punishment. I'm off to the T20 blast as well next week.
    And people complain about F1! At least that only lasts two hours (or longer if Kimi has an ice cream).

    I just don't get cricket. Any sport where you sit or stand around for most of the time isn't a sport ...
    You don't fish, I take it?
    No.

    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. ;)
    Funnily enough, I can relate to that. But I don't get fishing. Or tennis. Even snooker can be a pain to watch, although it's great fun to play.

    But then one of my favorite pastimes, chess, is hardly the world's greatest spectator sport.

    Each to his and her own.
    "I thank God for my opportunities for solitude, and kiss the gentle hand that led me into it. Though solitude might seem barren to the world, it can never be so to me."

    From the classic "Some Fruits of Solitude", well worth worth the 99p on the kindle store.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,933
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Much of the early research on smoking and cancer (including even Doll's) was not very robust. I vaguely recall reading one paper from some years later and noticing the percentages did not even add up. The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and that is good enough for me because if the science is wrong then that will be discovered by scientists. That is how science works. Scientists will find flaws in the data or its analysis -- not journalists or bloggers getting excited about discrepancies they don't understand. Even if the critics are right, it does not matter because science will find them out.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Much of the early research on smoking and cancer (including even Doll's) was not very robust. I vaguely recall reading one paper from some years later and noticing the percentages did not even add up. The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and that is good enough for me because if the science is wrong then that will be discovered by scientists. That is how science works. Scientists will find flaws in the data or its analysis -- not journalists or bloggers getting excited about discrepancies they don't understand. Even if the critics are right, it does not matter because science will find them out.
    Scientists, just like the rest of us, need to put food on the table.

    Funding dries up if you veer from the loudest voices.

    That's the biggest problem we have.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Much of the early research on smoking and cancer (including even Doll's) was not very robust. I vaguely recall reading one paper from some years later and noticing the percentages did not even add up. The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and that is good enough for me because if the science is wrong then that will be discovered by scientists. That is how science works. Scientists will find flaws in the data or its analysis -- not journalists or bloggers getting excited about discrepancies they don't understand. Even if the critics are right, it does not matter because science will find them out.
    Not to add weight to the conspiracy, but in this specific case it isn't that simple. All data modeling in relation to AGW is run of one set of two of "adjusted" data sets, which both originally come from the data the people at UEA.

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,816
    Charles said:

    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?

    My personal view is that climate change denial is perverse: the climate changes. AGW denial is a different matter.

    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.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited July 30
    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,952
    GeoffM said:

    So Brexiteers aren't relaxed about gay sex, poppers might help.

    Arch-Remoaner Farron is the most uptight person I can think of on the subject right now.

    He's repressed and fighting his urge for the Fleshy Veined Man Sausage.
    I don't think so. Despite his equivocations on sin, one of Farron's oldest friends is gay and it doesn't appear to be an issue for them:

    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
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,950
    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
    Well, that seems to be the assumption - or proposed scientific fact from the accepted position of 99% of our scientific community.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,952

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Much of the early research on smoking and cancer (including even Doll's) was not very robust. I vaguely recall reading one paper from some years later and noticing the percentages did not even add up. The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and that is good enough for me because if the science is wrong then that will be discovered by scientists. That is how science works. Scientists will find flaws in the data or its analysis -- not journalists or bloggers getting excited about discrepancies they don't understand. Even if the critics are right, it does not matter because science will find them out.
    Gregor Mendel falsified his famous genetic work on peas. Mendelian inheiritance is still true though!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,702

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

    As I remember the 'decline' would have made it look like the earth had warmed more rather than less as it was a decline in the baseline. By using the 'trick' they made their model say the world had warmed less. Which is a bit of a stupid trick if they are engaging in a conspiracy to show the Earth is warming dangerously
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,952
    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    You can see the scientists' point, of course. I
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
    It is probably the rate of change that is significant, and also man's constraining of natural compensatory mechanisms.

    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.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,394
    edited July 30

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    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.
    Much of the early research on smoking and cancer (including even Doll's) was not very robust. I vaguely recall reading one paper from some years later and noticing the percentages did not even add up. The scientific consensus is that AGW is real and that is good enough for me because if the science is wrong then that will be discovered by scientists. That is how science works. Scientists will find flaws in the data or its analysis -- not journalists or bloggers getting excited about discrepancies they don't understand. Even if the critics are right, it does not matter because science will find them out.
    That's rather good.
    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.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    One of the biggest mistakes that the Major government made was to raise taxes. If May/Hammond do that they will drive Conservative % towards 30%.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/30/dont-raise-taxes-middle-income-families-conservative-mps-warn/
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

    As I remember the 'decline' would have made it look like the earth had warmed more rather than less as it was a decline in the baseline. By using the 'trick' they made their model say the world had warmed less. Which is a bit of a stupid trick if they are engaging in a conspiracy to show the Earth is warming dangerously
    The modelling was changed to include a hockey stick.
    If you put in unchanging data it would still show a rise.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    edited July 30

    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    You can see the scientists' point, of course. I
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
    Like JJ, I think sustainable clean energy is a worthy goal in itself, independent of the discussion of AGW itself.
    Yes a worthy goal unless it leads to bad decisions such as more pollution from diesel, less safe appliances and dubious cladding.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    edited July 30
    Allan said:

    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    You can see the scientists' point, of course. I
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
    Like JJ, I think sustainable clean energy is a worthy goal in itself, independent of the discussion of AGW itself.
    Yes a worthy goal unless it leads to bad decisions such as more pollution from diesel, less safe appliances and dubious cladding.
    Or imagine somebody created a super efficient form of renewable energy production but it produced some level of co2 emissions (albeit less than burning coal). It would be instantly dismissed.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 8,702
    edited July 30
    GeoffM said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    OK, outline a couple of the commonest reasons why a scientist would use a "trick" to "hide the decline". Take your time.

    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    There was more than that, including (I believe) hard-coding the 'hockey-stick' temperature increase into the software to get the result they wanted.

    As I remember the 'decline' would have made it look like the earth had warmed more rather than less as it was a decline in the baseline. By using the 'trick' they made their model say the world had warmed less. Which is a bit of a stupid trick if they are engaging in a conspiracy to show the Earth is warming dangerously
    The modelling was changed to include a hockey stick.
    If you put in unchanging data it would still show a rise.
    Except from that blog linked earlier the alleged hard coded rise (there were multiple versions of the code released and it was not indicated which was the final one used to produce final model results) has the rise at completely the wrong time to match the classic hokeystick.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262

    Allan said:

    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    Charles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:


    I'm always slightly cautious about taking single emails like that and reading too much into them. If you searched through all my emails, might you find me describing having used a "trick"? Quite possibly. But it would need to be seen in context, a single email might be very misleading.

    It looks pretty fishy on the face of it, and if the best defence is the hilarious claim that the scientists were just tidying up to compensate for the fact that "the data did not match reality" (yes, really: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis), I think that is conclusive.

    You can see the scientists' point, of course. I
    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?
    You ask the right question. But are we just circa 5% of CO2 annual production?
    "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.
    Natural balance? I don't think it is the case that CO2 concentrations were static before we came along.
    Like JJ, I think sustainable clean energy is a worthy goal in itself, independent of the discussion of AGW itself.
    Yes a worthy goal unless it leads to bad decisions such as more pollution from diesel, less safe appliances and dubious cladding.
    Or imagine somebody created a super efficient form of renewable energy production but it produced some level of co2 emissions (albeit less than burning coal). It would be instantly dismissed.
    Wood?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,112

    Charles said:

    Is there a robust (but for the non-scientific among us) case somewhere for mankind being the primary cause of global warming?

    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?

    My personal view is that climate change denial is perverse: the climate changes. AGW denial is a different matter.

    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.
    As I have said far too many times before on here, oil is a finite resource that is far too valuable to burn. Doesn't change my view of AGW but it does mean I am happy to see people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    One of the reasons Osborne would have struggled for support in Conservative MPs. His BTL changes would be affecting almost 90 of them.
    https://www.urban.co.uk/landlord-university/landlord-news/well-represented-in-westminster-1-in-5-mps-are-landlords/
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,950
    Allan said:

    One of the reasons Osborne would have struggled for support in Conservative MPs. His BTL changes would be affecting almost 90 of them.
    https://www.urban.co.uk/landlord-university/landlord-news/well-represented-in-westminster-1-in-5-mps-are-landlords/

    Would be interesting to see how they voted on the BTL provisions in his last budget.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited July 30

    twitter.com/ft/status/891735403505561603

    The article says it's a new arm of the business and that 100 of the current 2100 London jobs "could" move.

    "Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    edited July 30
    GeoffM said:

    twitter.com/ft/status/891735403505561603

    The article says it's a new arm of the business and that 100 of the current 2100 London jobs "could" move.

    "Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
    It is the same story repeated. All banks are sensibly opening small satellite offices, but the small print is always the it is only 100 or so and often these are new jobs while the vast majority will still be in London.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    Looks like Vince has been stirring the pot.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited July 30

    GeoffM said:

    twitter.com/ft/status/891735403505561603

    The article says it's a new arm of the business and that 100 of the current 2100 London jobs "could" move.

    "Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
    It is the same story repeated. All banks are sensibly opening small satellite offices, but the small print is always the it is only 100 or so and often these are new jobs while the vast majority will still be in London.
    You are right and in this case it's even more to it than that. There's a law in the Netherlands about capping bonuses at 20% of fixed pay.

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,983
    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    twitter.com/ft/status/891735403505561603

    The article says it's a new arm of the business and that 100 of the current 2100 London jobs "could" move.

    "Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
    It is the same story repeated. All banks are sensibly opening small satellite offices, but the small print is always the it is only 100 or so and often these are new jobs while the vast majority will still be in London.
    You are right and in this case it's even more to it than that. There's a law in the Netherlands about capping bonuses at 20% of fixed pay.

    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.
    It's a Japanese bank with 35,000 employees. You do the math.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    Farron is obviously desperate to experience the Purple Veined Love Thermometer up his bottom but he's suppressing it by protesting too loudly and hiding behind his deity of choice.

    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?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,816

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    I've never heard gay sex referred to as 'barrel scraping' before! ;)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,886
    GeoffM said:

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    Farron is obviously desperate to experience the Purple Veined Love Thermometer up his bottom but he's suppressing it by protesting too loudly and hiding behind his deity of choice.

    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?
    That's silly.

    As was the abuse heaped on Tim Farron for innocuous views.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    twitter.com/ft/status/891735403505561603

    The article says it's a new arm of the business and that 100 of the current 2100 London jobs "could" move.

    "Could" always means "almost certainly won't".
    It is the same story repeated. All banks are sensibly opening small satellite offices, but the small print is always the it is only 100 or so and often these are new jobs while the vast majority will still be in London.
    You are right and in this case it's even more to it than that. There's a law in the Netherlands about capping bonuses at 20% of fixed pay.

    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.
    It's a Japanese bank with 35,000 employees. You do the math.
    The rules will apply to 700 staff across 22 offices in 14 European countries not counting the UK which won't be in the EU in ....ummm .... 606 days, 15 hours, 20 minutes.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,707
    More help is being provided than ever before for children in Britain who fear being forced into marriages, with some potential victims as young as 13, the NSPCC has said.

    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
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    Farron is obviously desperate to experience the Purple Veined Love Thermometer up his bottom but he's suppressing it by protesting too loudly and hiding behind his deity of choice.

    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?
    That's silly.

    As was the abuse heaped on Tim Farron for innocuous views.
    Yes I know it's very silly.

    But it beats another evening on bloody AGW
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    More help is being provided than ever before for children in Britain who fear being forced into marriages, with some potential victims as young as 13, the NSPCC has said.

    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

    The word "communities" is used twice in that. No clue from the article as to which "communities" they might be though.

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    More help is being provided than ever before for children in Britain who fear being forced into marriages, with some potential victims as young as 13, the NSPCC has said.

    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

    Any prosecutions?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,740
    GeoffM said:

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    Farron is obviously desperate to experience the Purple Veined Love Thermometer up his bottom but he's suppressing it by protesting too loudly and hiding behind his deity of choice.

    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?
    And of course every gay man just needs a real woman to sort out his sexuality...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    More help is being provided than ever before for children in Britain who fear being forced into marriages, with some potential victims as young as 13, the NSPCC has said.

    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

    Any prosecutions?
    One. Apparently.

    Which I think is one more than for FGM
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 5,891
    edited July 30
    This isn't that shocking. Looking at this: it appears to be driven mostly by older voters, and given that Leavers tended to be older there's no surprise about this. Of course, whether this means that they want to limit/roll back on LGBT rights is a different story. But having known several 50+ Leavers in my family many don't exactly have progressive attitudes when comes to the LGBT community. Although in regard to my dad, I've always gotten the sense that it comes from an insecurity in relation to his own masculinity.

    There's also a gender difference too: more men than women saying that it's not natural.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    GeoffM said:

    More help is being provided than ever before for children in Britain who fear being forced into marriages, with some potential victims as young as 13, the NSPCC has said.

    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

    Any prosecutions?
    One. Apparently.

    Which I think is one more than for FGM
    Exactly.

    Still. lets wring our hands over attitudes to gay sex and pretend that children aren't being abused in certain "communities"
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,952
    edited July 30
    I have been quite enjoying the BBC Gay Britannia season, commemmorating the 50th anniversary of decriminalisation.

    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,319
    Sean_F said:

    O/T but I think the brouhaha over Kevin Myers' column in the Sunday Times was ridiculous. His comment was pro-Jewish, not anti-Jewish.

    The comments were anti-Jewish, no doubt about it. However, his "targets" were legitimate. I cannot imagine what Winkleman and Feltz brings taht Luennsberg and Maitlis does not. Kuennsberg has a far more difficult job to do than read from autocues. Maitlis does not even earn £150k apparently.

    What does Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Vine do exactly which is so different from Jane Hill etc. ?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 351
    Few people care about politics in the Summer, and polls are meaningless at this time, and are in any case going to go back to overstating Labour support. The fact is that there wont be a general election for a long time. The DUP do not want to help Corbyn, its going to take the Tories years to lose 7 seats in by elections -if they ever do -and not even the SNP want an election soon.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    RobD said:

    Allan said:

    One of the reasons Osborne would have struggled for support in Conservative MPs. His BTL changes would be affecting almost 90 of them.
    https://www.urban.co.uk/landlord-university/landlord-news/well-represented-in-westminster-1-in-5-mps-are-landlords/

    Would be interesting to see how they voted on the BTL provisions in his last budget.
    For them through gritted teeth I guess. Now if Hammond wanted to create a large pro-Hammond group, reversing some of the BTL changes would win him support amongst members and MPs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,083

    Not to add weight to the conspiracy, but in this specific case it isn't that simple. All data modeling in relation to AGW is run of one set of two of "adjusted" data sets, which both originally come from the data the people at UEA.

    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.

    My personal view is that the evidence that the earth has warmed is pretty incontrovertible. There are two separately collected datasets that match up pretty much identically:

    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.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,234

    This isn't that shocking. Looking at this:

    it appears to be driven mostly by older voters, and given that Leavers tended to be older there's no surprise about this. Of course, whether this means that they want to limit/roll back on LGBT rights is a different story. But having known several 50+ Leavers in my family many don't exactly have progressive attitudes when comes to the LGBT community. Although in regard to my dad, I've always gotten the sense that it comes from an insecurity in relation to his own masculinity.

    There's also a gender difference too: more men than women saying that it's not natural.

    As I said, the question posed makes a big difference. Somebody more advanced in years who thinks "It certainly isn't natural for me, personally speaking" is hearing the question differently to a younger person who's opinion on the matter has always been liberal. Their views on practical matters of legal rights might well be identical.

    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.


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,342
    How many Asian people think Gay sex is natural? How many Black people?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,220
    Theresa's going to have to get grip when she returns from holiday - Sack Hammond... And Dr Fox!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,342
    edited July 30
    rcs1000 said:

    Not to add weight to the conspiracy, but in this specific case it isn't that simple. All data modeling in relation to AGW is run of one set of two of "adjusted" data sets, which both originally come from the data the people at UEA.

    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.

    My personal view is that the evidence that the earth has warmed is pretty incontrovertible. There are two separately collected datasets that match up pretty much identically:

    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.
    The warming going on is miniscule compared to the warming 14,000 years ago and that wot occurred 11,600 years ago.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    How many Asian people think Gay sex is natural? How many Black people?

    Sssssshhhh
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,342

    Hang on, a lib dem, after Farron resigned over his "views", is castigating Leavers over their (supposed) thoughts on gay sex.

    Utterly pathetic barrel scraping

    I've never heard gay sex referred to as 'barrel scraping' before! ;)
    Pork barrel scraping :)
This discussion has been closed.