Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

So we've had a page or two of people having a go at a scientist for saying something she didn't actually say? That's the level of debate is it?

No she's been criticised for saying something utterly non scientific

I'm in the Peterms camp on this one I'm afraid. When looking at all of what she has to say in context I don't think her comments are in conflict with the balance of evidence.

Edit - to add, I don't think she said this single event proves climate change, as you originally stated she said.

If I said that (without checking) its not what I meant, what I meant to say was she said the single event was caused by climate change (in her words "in all likelihood"), she utterly cannot and should not say that, it is unscientific as it is impossible to prove either way.

Well, that's certainly what you intimated she said. Now I could highlight that and ignore everything else you've subsequently said in order to add context and clarity to your thoughts but that would be too ironic for VT.

Seriously, I think in the context of the whole interview she got the balance just right, in line with the balance of evidence.

[peterms]

Edit - to add, I don't think she said this single event proves climate change, as you originally stated she said.

She as good as said it was caused by global warming therefore it must by definition be some sort of proof of global warming. It isn't and shouldn't be viewed as such.

I don't follow why you are claiming she "as good as said" this, when her exact words, in the report you've required, say the opposite.

"Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms."

[MakemineVanilla]

Here she is trying to convince the Texans.

 

She says some interesting things. 

 

 

It all sounds a bit vague and airy-fairy to convince a Texan.

 

Take away the self-promotion and I'm not sure she has a lot.

 

Her claims about how government acts on her advice sound laughable given the present row about lack of dredging, crumbling sea defences, and the national passion for building houses in floodplains. 

 

Edit - her speech only lasts around thirty minutes.

Edited February 19, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Petty circular debates lead to nothing constructive and I dare say are partly responsible for the disgraceful inaction.

[mockingbird_franklin]

getting away from weather, as I'm sure even the Lib-dem coalition can't be held to blame for it.

 

seems it's an endemic within the current Government (IDS especially) to make up statistics out of thin air that are at odds with the real ones

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/19/david-cameron-benefits-workless_n_4813606.html?ir=UK&utm_campaign=021914&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-uk&ncid=newsletter-uk&utm_content=Title

[MakemineVanilla]

Petty circular debates lead to nothing constructive and I dare say are partly responsible for the disgraceful inaction.

 

I don't think the debate is petty at all.

 

She states clearly that nothing we do, or any sacrifices we make now, will have any effect until 30 years time. 

 

She also states that the Met Office lacks the super computer to actually test their models or make any reliable predictions (expressions of probability).

 

She admits that her job is to persuade the public to make these sacrifices.

 

If people are to agree to make real monetary sacrifices, and make the right choices as to what to do, they need as much information as possible.

 

No government is keen on explaining those choices.

Edited February 19, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[AVFCLaura]

Do people still pay attention to all these spin doctor bastards?

[mockingbird_franklin]

Do people still pay attention to all these spin doctor bastards?

unfortunately yes, same as some people let the daily mail form their opinions for them

[Kingfisher]

So the Tory council cuts are now affecting rural bus services. So if you live in one of these rural parts of Wales and can't afford a car to get to your job or the job centre, or are too disabled to drive there, or you're too old to drive to the local supermarket you're fooked. I suppose it's only continuing what the Tories started in the 1960's when they decimated the rural rail network.

The Tory mantra, if it doesn't make a profit it has no value.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26262972

Edited February 20, 2014 by Kingfisher

[Jon]

I am in the VERY uncomfortable position of agreeing with the Church with regards Welfare Reform.

 

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

 

[MakemineVanilla]

I am in the VERY uncomfortable position of agreeing with the Church with regards Welfare Reform.

 

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

 

 

As the cliché goes, the Church of England is just the Tory party at prayer, and the religious origins of modern Conservatism can be found in Methodism - Thatcher was born in the heart of Wesley country.

 

It was no coincidence that Thatcher's first rant was a sermon on St Francis.

 

Methodist ideology is still at the heart of Tory 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' beliefs.

 

So it follows that religion would be the most potent weapon when attacking the Tories and they always squeal the loudest when the church is doing the attacking.

 

It is always the best strategy to attack a political system by judging it on its purported values.

[Risso]

Seems strange and almost completely forgotten now that less than two years ago the southern bit of Britain was considered to be in extreme drought conditions.

[Jon]

Seems strange and almost completely forgotten now that less than two years ago the southern bit of Britain was considered to be in extreme drought conditions.

Take it to the weather thread?

[robojoel]

Seems strange and almost completely forgotten now that less than two years ago the southern bit of Britain was considered to be in extreme drought conditions.

The whole thing is god punishing them for voting in the tories, obviously

[Kingfisher]

An interesting piece on the latest unemployment figures.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-the-reality-behind-the-job-stats-9139240.html?utm_content=bufferfe0b6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

It's certainly, anecdotally what I've seen happening. Going self employed and getting working tax credits is better than signing on - even though the work isn't there. I know many who are in this position. Hardly what I'd call part of a solid recovery. It seems it's a favoured form of employment for many companies too.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Kingfisher

[MakemineVanilla]

I noticed that the Met Office was one of things which appeared on the list of things this government might privatise.

 

The question arises, as to whether, as a profit-driven privatised company, its proclamations would be viewed differently by the Left? 

[chrisp65]

 

I am in the VERY uncomfortable position of agreeing with the Church with regards Welfare Reform.

 

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

 

 

As the cliché goes, the Church of England is just the Tory party at prayer, and the religious origins of modern Conservatism can be found in Methodism - Thatcher was born in the heart of Wesley country.

 

It was no coincidence that Thatcher's first rant was a sermon on St Francis.

 

Methodist ideology is still at the heart of Tory 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' beliefs.

 

So it follows that religion would be the most potent weapon when attacking the Tories and they always squeal the loudest when the church is doing the attacking.

 

It is always the best strategy to attack a political system by judging it on its purported values.

 

 

I think I might just disagree on the Methodism / Conservatism links.

Now all sorts of people can claim all sorts of roots and backgrounds, inspirations and common ground. But in my experience of working with Methodists I'd have to say it's rare to meet a tory Methodist. The mantra, as far as I can tell is to be nice and loving to others by giving services freely and offering help. This help might be free soup, free use of halls and other spaces, free places on buses to protest about this weeks thing.

 

I don't see that link in real grass roots life. Can't speak for many others, but in my experience those little Protestant sub churches, the likes of URC and whatnot are most definitely 'left' in the way they operate.

 

Certainly locally, those independent Wesleyian type churches are the first place to go when somebody wants help promoting a broadly softly lefty project.

[Kingfisher]

I noticed that the Met Office was one of things which appeared on the list of things this government might privatise.

The question arises, as to whether, as a profit-driven privatised company, its proclamations would be viewed differently by the Left?

I don't think the met office are a government patsy, whether privatisation would diminish their impartiality on climate change is a question open to debate. But it would be incredibly stupid to privatise such an important public tool IMO.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

I noticed that the Met Office was one of things which appeared on the list of things this government might privatise.

The question arises, as to whether, as a profit-driven privatised company, its proclamations would be viewed differently by the Left?

I don't think the met office are a government patsy, whether privatisation would diminish their impartiality on climate change is a question open to debate. But it would be incredibly stupid to privatise such an important public tool IMO.

 

 

The Met Office is already very lucrative business which has revenues of over £200m and profits of £12m.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/e/Annual_Report-web.pdf

 

They definitely judge their own performance by their balance sheet.

 

It would certainly look like the business would be very attractive to a buyer because that £200m looks like it could yield a bit more profit than £12m, bearing in mind that they employ 1700 staff, which includes 500 scientists.

 

What would most likely happen is that the profit-making part of the business would be sold off, which would leave the loss-making part in public ownership.

 

What with the links between weather forecasting and defence, I think it would be politically difficult, but it looks like easy money for the Tories friends.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Milne hit the nail on the head in today's Guardian

 

 

When it comes to the incompatibility of effective action of averting climate disaster with their own neoliberal ideology, the deniers are absolutely right. In the words of Nicholas Stern's 2006 report, climate change is "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen".

 

The intervention, regulation, taxation, social ownership, redistribution and global co-operation needed to slash carbon emissions and build a sustainable economy for the future is clearly incompatible with a broken economic model based on untrammelled self-interest and the corporate free-for-all that created the crisis in the first place.

 

 

There is room for debate in a democracy but one shouldn't mistake lazy contradiction for debate. Sitting on your arse and saying 'No, no that isn't true' and providing no evidence whatsoever to the contrary is highly suspicious behaviour and I can only attribute it to what Milne pointed out, an ideological stance rather than a genuine disagreement based on research and science.