buctootim

A typical conclusion from you, grey, humourless, dull.

egg

So most of the MPs sharp enough to be ministers are backing staying in, and the resentful dullards who are hoping for better prospects under Boris are voting out. Got it.

That graph shows why climate science is so important. A lot (most?) climate scientists agree we would be heading towards a new ice age by now if it wasnt for man made ghgs. Without any naturally occurring ghgs at all average earth surface temperatures would be around -18c. Some is essential, but no-one yet knows the underlying rate of climate cooling and how much man made C02 is needed to create the Goldilocks temperature. Its not the temperature changes observed so far that are important. Its the fact that current and projected levels of C02 are closely associated with much higher temperatures levels. We wont feel the full effect of ghgs we've already put into the atmosphere for a another century. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

They are just putting the data out there and saying what the implications are. The controversy is between those who believe it and those who dont. As long as they stick to that and dont advocate specific policies I see what they are doing as a core part of their job. I saw Adair Turner give a great speech on the issue a few years ago along the lines of - "it will cost us 1.2% of GDP over 40 years to stop this happening. Put another way we will be as rich by December 2050 as we would have been by April 2050 if we did nothing. Why wouldnt you spend the money when the costs of not acting are so much higher - wars, refugees, hunger - even just adaptations to our houses would cost far more. Prudence, spend a little now and prevent disaster later is the principle the whole insurance industry is built on".

Yes but there is huge difference between predicting weather tomorrow and looking back at historical temperature and ghg emissions to make estimates for future years. Insurance companies dont know who is going crash each day but by looking at past claims they can accurately aggregate claims for the coming year.

Okay, I'll give you that one How about Kelvin?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015

You've been wrong on every single point and you're wrong again and you accuse me of being thick? You know what that makes you presumably? - congratulations on defying the chimp and typewriter odds. Its c1.2 centigrade since 1900 and 1 centigrade above the 1850-1900 average. Not Farenheit. Clear?

Its nothing in terms of history of the world. However the past 135 years has seen the majority of human greenhouse gas emissions. Without rehashing all the old arguments, no-one is denying the climate changes naturally. Man made climate change is additional to that.

Still missing. The magazine Nature is pop science. The report is a shortened and dumbed down version for non experts. Not dumbed down enough apparently.

Maybe - but Im able to understand basic reports and data which elude you. You're must be in a bad place. To be super clear (This is what I use for my eight year old but not needed for my 12 year old) - even if some decades are +0.2 and some are -0.2 since 1900 global surface temperatures have risen by around 1.2c. No amount of deflection from you every time you are caught being a functional illiterate is going to change that.

Given you arent able to interpret even a pop science article maybe you should consider a guardian to look after your money? FYI 0.2c per decade is 1.2c so far and because of the lag another 1.2 is built into the system even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow. We'll be lucky to get away with 3c in total - thats the difference between London and Toulouse and between Toulouse and Tehran.

I think what probably happened is that the left wing group in Labour party wanted someone to stand in order to reclaim the traditions of the party (as they see it) and felt he could do the best job. I agree he probably wishes he was still hiking across the fells or eating lunch in a pub. I like him more than I agree with him - he has principles and having a Prime Minister who wants to do the job out of a sense of duty rather than personal ambition is much preferable imo. The trouble is those arent the qualities needed to lead a party - when being ruthless, mendacious and the ability to bend with every wind and media story are more important.

You didn't read or understand the report you cited. It is about fluctuations in the rate of climate change in the early 2000s, not denying it exists. Here's a helpful line from it: "A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”. Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices include ‘reduced rate of warming’, ‘decadal fluctuation’ or ‘temporary slowdown’ " It was still getting warmer in the early 2000s just not quite as quickly as before or since. To be clear 2015 was the warmest year on record and January 2016 was the warmest month since modern record-keeping began in 1880 continuing a long-term warming trend. 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015 https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-global-2016 Yeah we know - its not real because of El Nino / the fiddled the results by increasing the weight given to sea buoys / emailgate.

age

You haven't really got the hang of analogies have you?

The whole of the defence budget is a total waste of money, unless you need it, in which case it isnt. Labour have been conducting a review of defence. Corbyn was clearing trying not to pre-empt the findings of that review, so hedged what he said. He clearly doesnt want Trident in any form and has never wanted Trident in any form - but he was prepared to wait to see what the review says. No flip flopping.

More of a wander round the shops looking at what the options are - instead of leaving the shop and sitting in the carpark by youself.

The whole EU will look very different in three years time anyway imo. There is no way the EU is going to end up as a superstate from Sweden to Ksovo, from Ireland to Turkey.

Why would a Government or any political party rule something out for ever? "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" Keynes. He'd obviously never heard of UKIP.

Pretty good, thanks for asking. The UK is well behind Germany, OECD average and most other northern European and commonwealth economies - we've only just managed to achieve the same GDP per capita we had in 2007. Obviously the eurozone average is dragged down by Greece and Spain but is still higher than the UK since 2005 - or were you thinking the UK economy was comparable to Greece?

belch

I'd take him but I'd be surprised if he was interested. Never go back is a decent rule of thumb

It seems Wes believes the EU have banned us from trading with the rest of the world, but once we leave there will be previously untapped horde of countries wanting our stuff. We shoot uldnt upset him by pointing out it will actually be harder not easier.