Cameron and Hunt

[brevel_monkey]

Cameron has basically given up trying to pretend that he thinks that Hunt wasn't Murdoch's little puppy. Cameron knows he was, we know he was, Cameron knows that everybody knows he was.

Basically what Cameron is now saying is: my government is corrupt, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. He knows how weak Labour are, and how often it is in British politics that a government only lasts one term. So basically he's just saying: screw you public, you're going to re-elect me anyway.

I'll vote against him, but he'll probably get re-elected anyway, with the support of Murdoch's newspapers firmly behind him.

I wondered when this was going to happen: when someone who was prime minister would finally become smart enough to realize that with enough positive media backing for them and a weak opposition against them, they are basically free to ignore what the public wants. I mean, Blair set the standard with Iraq, I suppose, but Cameron is taking it to a new level where he's stopped even pretending to give a shit when pretty much everyone in the country is firmly against him.

Well anyway, we're stuck with him for another two terms so maybe we should just accept that that's how Britain is governed now. Whoever takes over from him next time will have learned from the lessons that Cameron taught and will do the same.

Would you believe I voted for that guy? I am such a douche!

[SIATD v2]

You voting for Cameron is bad enough. You voting per se is just moronic. It's like voting in the X-Factor.

[brevel_monkey]

Why wouldn't I vote? Whats the benefit of not voting?

[SIATD v2]

If I voted for Cameron I would kill myself.

[brevel_monkey]

If I voted for Cameron I would kill myself.

Ok. Noted. Although for me I think that would be an extreme reaction to a relatively minor mistake.

[SIATD v2]

OK, now assuming you're neither insane nor mentally handicapped, and aside from voting for Cameron you show no signs of either, I'm wondering - why did you vote for him? I have several friends who voted Tory, and I've never let them live it down, and none of them have really been able to give me an explanation for their decision.

Also, I admire your bravery in admitting it. Most people would be so ashamed that if they didn't kill themselves they would at least pretend to have voted BNP or UKIP.

[brevel_monkey]

Well, normally I vote green. I care about the environment a lot more than I care about pretty much anything else in politics. After all, I don't even live in the UK. Last election the tories made the environment one of their biggest policy areas and promised to go very green. Labour didn't. I felt that they were worth a shot.

I really thought that Cameron was the kind of first class idiot who puts his principles above everything else, and who'd ignore all his advisers and push forward with green reforms with an air of smug moral superiority. I didn't expect they would to double back on everything they said and screw the environment over every time a corporation asked them to. But it turns out Cameron's a touch smarter and more devious than I had him pegged for. My bad.

[SIATD v2]

Well, normally I vote green. I care about the environment a lot more than I care about pretty much anything else in politics.

OK, let me stop you there - why? Why do you care about 'the environment' more than anything else in politics?

After all, I don't even live in the UK. Last election the tories made the environment one of their biggest policy areas and promised to go very green. Labour didn't. I felt that they were worth a shot.

Lesson learned - all political parties pay lip service to 'the environment', they only care about it as a means of centralising power, raising taxes, the usual thing.

I really thought that Cameron was the kind of first class idiot who puts his principles above everything else, and who'd ignore all his advisers and push forward with green reforms with an air of smug moral superiority.

Cameron is an aristocratic sociopath, he has no principles. I find this quite baffling, but I suppose if you don't live in the UK you might not have realised this.

I didn't expect they would to double back on everything they said and screw the environment over every time a corporation asked them to. But it turns out Cameron's a touch smarter and more devious than I had him pegged for. My bad.

Cameron is just the same old Tory scum - blame the poor and immigrants, screw as much money out of them as you can and siphon it into private corporations so you have a big fat job to retire into when people finally get sick of you and boot you out. Not that Blair was really any different, but he's basically a Tory in Labour clothing...

[brevel_monkey]

OK, let me stop you there - why? Why do you care about 'the environment' more than anything else in politics?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the biodiversity is a) in a lot of trouble and b)worth protecting. The polar icecaps are melting: its going to be very hard to re-ice them. More to the point, environmental anomalies caused by rapid temperature change are heavily affecting the livelihoods of many third world countries, not least Vietnam, my own country of residence. And I'm not a person who says "its all fucked so lets just give up". There's a lot we can do to protect the environment if we try, but the West has this inane sense of defeatism about it when it comes to this issue which is irritating.

Well, either they are defeatist or they have bought in to corporate America's argument that there are no man made environmental problems. Only people with really big bucks could manage to con enough imbeciles into believing against something like that - but the formula was pretty simple: sponsor a few scientists to posit 'alternative theories', pay a few politicians off to start ranting about how there is mass scientific agreement and in no time at all they'd made a huge group of people believe that global warming is a big conspiracy. It was inevitable: environmental protection groups wanted to do stuff that would hurt big corporation's profits. Man - the manipuability of idiots makes me cross.

Basically anytime it suits big business for people to start believing something, people start believing it. Maybe its all one massive coincidence, but I somewhat doubt it.

[SIATD v2]

OK, let me stop you there - why? Why do you care about 'the environment' more than anything else in politics?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the biodiversity is a) in a lot of trouble and b)worth protecting.

Actually, it would take a genius to figure that out. Tell me, how many species are there on the planet? How many were there 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 20, 50 years ago? The truth is, we don't have answer to that question. Hence, we haven't a clue about biodiversity.

The polar icecaps are melting: its going to be very hard to re-ice them.

This is bullshit, and let me show you to what extent it is bullshit. We recently hit the peak sea ice part of the season in the arctic, and hey presto, only one year to go, and we're actually seeing a 10-year peak in sea ice. It has not been a particularly cold northern hemisphere winter, particularly not relative to the previous couple of winters.
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/04/05 ... he-season/
Now, this is only something we've been measuring for a short period of time, and this graph show the fundamental data that we have:


Looking at this data, there isn't exactly conclusive proof of a problem, certainly not an imminent one, with the artic ice. And what do you say we should do about this non-existent imminent problem? Indeed, why do 'we' have to do anything about it?

More to the point, environmental anomalies caused by rapid temperature change are heavily affecting the livelihoods of many third world countries, not least Vietnam, my own country of residence.

The last 15 years of global annual temperatures (without even getting into why that's twaddle):



'Rapid temperature change' you say...

And I'm not a person who says "its all fucked so lets just give up". There's a lot we can do to protect the environment if we try, but the West has this inane sense of defeatism about it when it comes to this issue which is irritating.

On the contrary, the West pretended that it was a real problem and tried to use it as a means of transforming the economy. That failed, when it turned out a whole bunch of scientists had committed fraud. They covered it up, fudged the issue, pretended it wasn't fraud, but when your models leave out divergent data on purpose so that your favoured conclusion is spat out, that is fraud.

Well, either they are defeatist or they have bought in to corporate America's argument that there are no man made environmental problems. Only people with really big bucks could manage to con enough imbeciles into believing against something like that - but the formula was pretty simple: sponsor a few scientists to posit 'alternative theories', pay a few politicians off to start ranting about how there is mass scientific agreement and in no time at all they'd made a huge group of people believe that global warming is a big conspiracy. It was inevitable: environmental protection groups wanted to do stuff that would hurt big corporation's profits. Man - the manipuability of idiots makes me cross.

That's because you are believing in a myth. Some of the biggest corporations were totally behind the man-made global warming nonsense that has thankfully now faded into the background. Look into the Chicago Climate Exchange. Funnily enough, one of its advisors (and chairman of its Indian arm) was none other than Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC. The whole global warming thing began as a scientific theory, but then got turned into a massive political/financial deception.

Basically anytime it suits big business for people to start believing something, people start believing it. Maybe its all one massive coincidence, but I somewhat doubt it.

I think you are naive and don't know what you are talking about. The whole 'global warming/ice cap melting' thing makes for dramatic TV, but as an environmentalist I can say it has done huge damage to the environmental movement. It has turned it into just another apocalyptic scenario used as the justification for extorting people's money. I'm not denying some oil companies, some of the time, have sponsored contrary science of an extremely dubious nature, but they never had nearly 50 major newspapers across the world acting in unison by all posting the exact same article - global warming did. Plus, the biggest oil company actually suffered a shareholder revolt over the company's policy towards global warming - conveniently just as those same shareholders stood to make billions off the proposed carbon credit cap n trade tax system.

Don't kid yourself, the scientific evidence just isn't there for these myths, and the reason you hear so much about them is because there's a fuck of a lot of money to be made and power to be gained from them. Seriously, I am one of the staunchest environmentalists you will find - I find the environmental destruction of the world genuinely troubling and motivating. But all this crap about graphs that supposedly show the future, and invariably don't actually show the future, that's a distraction. I applaud your concern but seriously, you just don't know what you're talking about, and that means you are ripe for assholes like Cameron. You've admitted yourself, you voted for him because of a lie. What you don't realise is that your own beliefs on this are also a lie.

[Typist]

So, hopefully you guys now understand what's really going on. Finally someone is telling us the straight story!!

SIATD v2 the Wanker and a few other posturing forum punks are right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong.

It's about time the truth came out!!

And it's true, some Americans actually believe the Wanker Posse, proving yet again that yes, Americans are idiots. And you can quote me on that!

[SIATD v2]

Are you the type of guy who deep down wishes he could shit himself in public and not be embarrassed?

[Typist]

Are you the type of guy who deep down wishes he could shit himself in public and not be embarrassed?

No, I'm the type of guy who deep down is pretty much exactly like you, a pompous typoholic bozo with a big mouth. Except older. I think that's why we're getting along so well. Will you have my baby?

[brevel_monkey]

Actually, it would take a genius to figure that out. Tell me, how many species are there on the planet? How many were there 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 20, 50 years ago? The truth is, we don't have answer to that question. Hence, we haven't a clue about biodiversity.

You don't need to have counted every species on earth to know what the general trend in biodiversity is. You obviously have no understanding of how statistical analysis works.

That, along with the fact that you posted an (unsourced) graph that showed that arctic sea ice had declined on average of about 7% in just 30 years, and another graph that clearly showed rapid temperature change (put in the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years), tells me that you know fuck all about the environment or what you are talking about here.

[SIATD v2]

Actually, it would take a genius to figure that out. Tell me, how many species are there on the planet? How many were there 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 20, 50 years ago? The truth is, we don't have answer to that question. Hence, we haven't a clue about biodiversity.

You don't need to have counted every species on earth to know what the general trend in biodiversity is.

To know it? Yes, you do need that.

You obviously have no understanding of how statistical analysis works.

Obviously, so explain it to me.

That, along with the fact that you posted an (unsourced) graph that showed that arctic sea ice had declined on average of about 7% in just 30 years, and another graph that clearly showed rapid temperature change (put in the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years), tells me that you know fuck all about the environment or what you are talking about here.

The graph came from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. You say it shows, 'that arctic sea ice had declined on average of about 7% in just 30 years'. OK, that's one reading of it. I would say that whatever it shows, it shows in 'just 30 years' because we only have 30 years of data. Anything that happens in a short time frame is tautologically happening within 'just' that time frame. This is an attempt by you to make out that this is somehow some radical new phenomena happening at an alarming rate, when you simply don't have the data to make such an assessment. It is a habit you have picked up from the scaremongering climate coverage you no doubt have read in the English language press in Asia.

It also shows a general pattern of decline amidst great variability, but this decline stopped in 2007 and is looking like an incline again. It certainly does not show what you claim, that:

The polar icecaps are melting: its going to be very hard to re-ice them.

On the contrary, the graph shows that there is clearly plenty of natural variability in the arctic sea ice, regardless of any alleged human influence on it. The ice goes up and down, up and down, and for the last 30 years has been gradually going down. A bit. Not really something to panic over, certainly not worth voting for David Cameron over.

You also say I included:

another graph that clearly showed rapid temperature change (put in the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years)

From this you conclude:

you know fuck all about the environment or what you are talking about here.

Prepare to be humiliated. Dr Phil Jones, the disgraced 'scientist' at the centre of the climategate affair, was asked about the numbers over this period in early 2010. Jones is a renowned ardent support of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, and supports all kinds of horrendous and anti-scientific methods to get this message out to people. So, he's on your side. Like I say, he was asked about the period in question, that you say shows 'rapid temperature change' in the context of millions of years of temperature data.

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Did you see that? You said it was:

rapid temperature change (put in the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years)

An actual climatologist who is the most ardent support of global warming hogwash that you will find anywhere on the planet agreed that in the very same period that not only was the temperature change not 'rapid', as you put it, it was 'not statistically significant'.

Furthermore, I would like to know from where you get:

the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years

To my knowledge, the oldest ice core records, whatever their reliability, go back about 800,000 years. This is a graph of the temperature changes over that period:


Look at the wildness, look at the colours. Then look again at the graph that you say shows:

rapid temperature change (put in the context of temperature changes happening over millions of years)

Now, given that evidence and expert opinion is in support of what I'm saying, even when the expert opinion likes to conclude things that are in direct contradiction to what they admit the data actually shows, are you willing to qualify your assessment that I:

know fuck all about the environment or what you are talking about here

?

I mean, I clearly know more about it than you. You've claimed there are temperature records over millions of years, which there aren't. Your interpretation of the sea ice graph was outrageously silly, not supported by the data at all. Your claim of rapid warming since 1995 isn't born out by the data, or expert opinion. You have so far come up with pretty much fuck all but misguided gibberish that shows no understanding of the actual science at stake in this argument.

Now, given that my argument is further evidenced and supported by the fact that, by your own admission, you are one of the people taken in by this propaganda in support of a political agenda that turned out to be a deception, are you really prepared to carry on down the path you've taken so far in this thread? There is another option open to you, you know...

[brevel_monkey]

Your interpretation of the sea ice graph was outrageously silly, not supported by the data at all.

Sorry, but this isn't grade school. The graph shows a clear downwards statistical trend. The fact that it goes down a little faster around 2000 and up a little at the end does not do much to negate this interpretation.

I'm not really bothered by your sloppy string of ad-hominem 'arguments' (like "Jones is a renowned ardent support of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, and supports all kinds of horrendous and anti-scientific methods to get this message out to people. So, he's on your side.") and straw men (like "You've claimed there are temperature records over millions of years, which there aren't"), and between all of these fallacies I'm afraid I can't find anything in your post worth responding to.

[SIATD v2]

Your interpretation of the sea ice graph was outrageously silly, not supported by the data at all.

Sorry, but this isn't grade school. The graph shows a clear downwards statistical trend. The fact that it goes down a little faster around 2000 and up a little at the end does not do much to negate this interpretation.

This is a revision of your prior position.

I'm not really bothered by your sloppy string of ad-hominem 'arguments' (like "Jones is a renowned ardent support of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, and supports all kinds of horrendous and anti-scientific methods to get this message out to people. So, he's on your side.") and straw men (like "You've claimed there are temperature records over millions of years, which there aren't"), and between all of these fallacies I'm afraid I can't find anything in your post worth responding to.

You talked of 'temperature changes over millions of years'. You did not explicitly state that there are temperature records over millions of years, but it is certainly implied by your argument.

But OK, if it is a straw man and you are not implicitly claiming that records exist over millions of years then what, pray tell, are you using as the basis for your explicit claim?

Face it, you just don't have the evidence to substantiate your claims. Or, if I'm wrong and you do have the data, present it. I've presented mine, told you where I got it, had you make stuff up about it that was simply untrue (and demonstrably untrue via the statements of people who actually support your side of this argument). Let me do the same, it's only fair...