Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Err There is proof. Einstein forecast that gravity would bend light..It is now proven . Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.
"Anyone looking forward to PollyT on BBC DP? Bitter lady upset with Labour and the Tories...rant rant rant." I felt a little sorry for her. The bright, black bloke next to her was doing his best to be gentle, but she came over as ... thick. She should have been used during the ... can I mention the R word? ... Leave would have won by around 20% then.
Moan, Whinge, Moan. No hope or optimism about anything. A look on her face to turn milk sour. PollyT is in a deep dark hole.
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Same question then. Of the 195 world nations:
How many would you rank above us?
How many would you rank below us?
Middle ranking is somewhere like Argentina.
A quick check of world GDP stats on your old wikipedia gives countries like Azerbaijan, Cote d'Ivoire and Bolivia. Argentina are 'Championship' if the analogy holds.
Anyone trying to say GB is 'middle ranking' in Europe has an odd perception of what "about 2nd" means.
Did Martin Brundle not used to call it "first loser"?
Ladbrokes Clinton Firewall finder looks like a very interesting market.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
That would matter if it were not for the fact that Trump lies more. Check out how Politifact rates each candidates' statements for evidence.
Dearie me. What a silly post. It's commentary from the pro Dem WaPo - handwaving doesn't make it go away.
Surely, as a PB regular you've got this by now?
Surely it's a fact that in order for the GOP to exploit Hillary's 'trust problem', they probably shouldn't have nominated someone even less trustworthy?!
Here are the numbers according to the IMF (2016, USD, tn):
1. USA - 18.6 - EU - 16.5 - EU ex-UK 13.7 2. China - 11.4 3. Japan - 4.4 4. Germany - 3.5 5. UK - 2.8 6. France - 2.5
Hardly mid ranking. Truly an insight into the EUphile mind.
Unless you only think there's 9 nations in the world rather than 195. We are so close to the top of the list you can write everything up to us and France without it being a mammoth list.
For Hillary fans - from WaPo re her terrible honesty ratings.
And her dishonesty stretches back decades. As the late, great William Safire pointed out in a 1996 New York Times column, she delivered a “blizzard of lies” as first lady — about Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, her representation of a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S&L and how she made a 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading simply by studying the Wall Street Journal. Even back then, Safire concluded, Clinton was “a congenital liar.”
That would matter if it were not for the fact that Trump lies more. Check out how Politifact rates each candidates' statements for evidence.
Dearie me. What a silly post. It's commentary from the pro Dem WaPo - handwaving doesn't make it go away.
Surely, as a PB regular you've got this by now?
That Politifact site looks very silly to me. It makes no attempt to distinguish between political falsehoods of the £350m a week kind, and lies about the liar's own personal history.
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Same question then. Of the 195 world nations:
How many would you rank above us?
How many would you rank below us?
Middle ranking is somewhere like Argentina.
A quick check of world GDP stats on your old wikipedia gives countries like Azerbaijan, Cote d'Ivoire and Bolivia. Argentina are 'Championship' if the analogy holds.
Anyone trying to say GB is 'middle ranking' in Europe has an odd perception of what "about 2nd" means.
Did Martin Brundle not used to call it "first loser"?
Also, after Brexit the EU will have a population 6.7x larger than the UK but it's GDP will be 4.9x larger, in a far less integrated market which limits the potential for growth.
Given that trade is conducted at nominal prices it is fair to look at nominal GDP rather than PPP, it's why China fairs so well in terms of growth despite the huge disparity between their nominal and PPP GDP amounts.
Given that trade is conducted at nominal prices it is fair to look at nominal GDP rather than PPP, it's why China fairs so well in terms of growth despite the huge disparity between their nominal and PPP GDP amounts.
In which case we've probably dropped below France by now, given the rapid recent depreciation of sterling.
Also, after Brexit the EU will have a population 6.7x larger than the UK but it's GDP will be 4.9x larger, in a far less integrated market which limits the potential for growth.
It's premature to talk about 'after Brexit' as we don't yet know when or what will change.
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Edited: the top ranking countries are the United States, China and to the extent it is supranational, the EU
The EU does not have a seat on the Security Council and is an observer at G7 & G20.
The EU does not have any military force projection worth the name and only one of its members - France - has a military which might be considered 'world class' - but its the French military, not the EUs.
We export more to the rest of the world than we do to the EU.
The EU exports more to us than we do to them.
Not bad for a 'middle ranking' country, nor too shoddy a negotiating position either....
I am clearly out on a limb on this one. Middle ranking doesn't have to apply half way down a list. It's a case of how assertive we can expect to be as a country, from expecting others to do what we want as a top power, as with the US, the EU and China down to not having much of a say at all. Worth a read:
Ladbrokes Clinton Firewall finder looks like a very interesting market.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
The one that tempts me on a Trump wins/virtual tie scenario is New Hampshire. If Hillary wins any above that Trump has not won or even come that close.
Given that trade is conducted at nominal prices it is fair to look at nominal GDP rather than PPP, it's why China fairs so well in terms of growth despite the huge disparity between their nominal and PPP GDP amounts.
In which case we've probably dropped below France by now, given the rapid recent depreciation of sterling.
Probably about evens, on a good day we'll be ahead, on a bad day like today they will. Holding down Sterling will help boost the longer term picture, especially wrt to external trade and overseas income.
Bloomberg - UK Told It Has Zero Chance of Having Brexit Cake and Eating It http://bloom.bg/2czUoYm
Sounds like hard Brexit to me. I have also moved my investments to cope with Trumps trade war, just in case.
Yes, it looks like a shambolic situation whereby we end up with a settlement that a MINORITY of the UK population actually want – outside the single market.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Does that not depend on which branch of science one is looking at, Mr Enjineeya? I should have thought that some ideas were capable of proof (if not using the techniques of mathematical proof), such as the existence of elements, photosynthesis, circulation of blood and so forth. Others are not so easily confirmed and remain at the conjecture level, at least for the moment. Consensus of learned is not, as Mr Dancer pointed out, any guarantee of being correct.
There is no guarantee of anything being correct, but scientists who have spent their lives studying and gaining expertise in a particular area are more likely to be correct in their predictions relating to that area than people who have no expertise in that field.
Now there I must to an extent disagree with you. That blood circulates around the body is undoubtedly true, that the earth rotates around the sun is also undoubtedly true and so on for thousands of examples of scientific truth. They are guaranteed to be true, though many, if not most, were once upon a time outside the consensus of the learned.
And with that thought I am off back to the 12th century for the afternoon. King Stephen versus the Empress Maude, was it the first true English civil war?
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
Same question then. Of the 195 world nations:
How many would you rank above us?
How many would you rank below us?
Middle ranking is somewhere like Argentina.
A quick check of world GDP stats on your old wikipedia gives countries like Azerbaijan, Cote d'Ivoire and Bolivia. Argentina are 'Championship' if the analogy holds.
Anyone trying to say GB is 'middle ranking' in Europe has an odd perception of what "about 2nd" means.
Did Martin Brundle not used to call it "first loser"?
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Err There is proof. Einstein forecast that gravity would bend light..It is now proven . Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.
That's evidence it isn't proof.
Sounds like you're saying that there is no proof in physics (and hence chemistry and biology), only evidence. Leaving only logic and mathematics as areas with proofs.
In my view, that is a very healthy scientific attitude.
Re Newtonian physics working, of course it does, when applied at the right scale. Quantum physics also works, at its appropriate scale. Who knows what physics we'll need to reach ToE. It seems as though quantum physics is insufficient.
Texas @ 20-1 is a good bet here as it is first on the list so doubles up as a straight state bet. You can even combine it with the 1-12 on Texas with Paddy Power for a guaranteed profit.
Montana is a HORRIBLE bet at 16-1, if Montana goes - so most likely does Texas methinks and the population is less hispanic.
Georgia at 7-1 might be worth consideration, though if GA goes then Texas could be in trouble. Arizona looks terrible at 7-1, seeing as GA is above it in the list and these two states are fairly close in terms of how they might go.
From here on down you're up against Arizona going to Hillary, which makes Iowa, Ohio unappealing at the odds.
North Carolina might be OK at 12-1 but you're up against a narrow path with all the above states working against.
New Jersey at 33-1 might be worth a poke looking further down the list if you expect a Trump landslide...
Ladbrokes Clinton Firewall finder looks like a very interesting market.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
The one that tempts me on a Trump wins/virtual tie scenario is New Hampshire. If Hillary wins any above that Trump has not won or even come that close.
I agree; I just can't see NH being a big fan of Trump, and it's economy has been doing pretty well.
Bloomberg - UK Told It Has Zero Chance of Having Brexit Cake and Eating It http://bloom.bg/2czUoYm
Sounds like hard Brexit to me. I have also moved my investments to cope with Trumps trade war, just in case.
Yes, it looks like a shambolic situation whereby we end up with a settlement that a MINORITY of the UK population actually want – outside the single market.
You must remember that before Art 50 there will be a lot of posturing. Much of it is intended for domestic audiences when it comes from other EU leaders, not least of all because they don't want their populations to get any bright ideas.
Russia doing well in explaining how it did/didn't bomb the aid convey/terrorist weapon shipment actually it was the rebels with their massive air force.
How many European countries would you rank above us?
How many European countries would you rank below us?
Does that put us in the 'middle'?
MIddle ranking in world terms and therefore a regional player, which makes the EU very important to us.
5th largest economy. Maybe not Champions League, but we're still top 6 and in the hunt for big prizes.
Everton? Glorious past, unmatched tradition, solid fan base, has seen rocky times, now heading up again under new management, having added some backbone to some namby pamby policies that weren't finding favour with the fans? (Yes I know the manager's Dutch, and that rather spoils my point - Actually second thoughts maybe not - we need high skilled high paid migration that we want).
Spreads are widening on US/UK govt bond yields; that's, I think, the main driver.
Behind that is, I suspect, a gap in forward interest rate outlook - an early small increase expected in the US with a reducing chance of the UK's recent cut being reversed in the new future - and additionally growing concerns about the impact of harder Brexit.
Ladbrokes Clinton Firewall finder looks like a very interesting market.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
The one that tempts me on a Trump wins/virtual tie scenario is New Hampshire. If Hillary wins any above that Trump has not won or even come that close.
I agree; I just can't see NH being a big fan of Trump, and it's economy has been doing pretty well.
Personally, I don't see NH going Trump. Any of the 16 other candidates, and it would be in the GOP column. So to me, Colorado or even Wisconsin are key, with PA being the one with the potential for a yuuuge surprise on the night (lots of redneck areas, so it depends on low turnout in Philly).
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Err There is proof. Einstein forecast that gravity would bend light..It is now proven . Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.
Any scientific theory is purely a model, an abstraction of how the universe works that fits the observations. This is why we still teach Newtonian dynamics, it is a valid model for most practical purposes, it's just an incomplete model.
We know Einsteinian relativity is an incomplete model too as it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Theory (and various other reasons), just we don't yet know where it breaks down.
Mr. 86, the media's good at repeating the current consensus and regurgitating press releases, and not much more. There are exceptions, but not many.
Mr. Llama, whilst true, Newton's views on light were wrong (or, at best, incomplete) but his reputation meant his views went almost unchallenged for centuries [a scientific consensus is no guarantee of being right].
Having trained as a mathematician I am never convinced by the idea of scientific consensus. Either there is proof or there is not proof in which case all one has is a conjecture.
The idea of scientific consensus is no more than the general agreement of wise men. Throughout human history such agreements has been, time after time, proved to be wrong.
Having trained as a scientist, I know that proof is not a part of science. Consensus is the closest that science can come to proof. There is, for example, consensus that theories such as those of Newton and Einstein are good descriptions of certain aspects of reality, but there is no proof.
Err There is proof. Einstein forecast that gravity would bend light..It is now proven . Newtonian physics works - in a limted fashion.
That's evidence it isn't proof.
Sounds like you're saying that there is no proof in physics (and hence chemistry and biology), only evidence. Leaving only logic and mathematics as areas with proofs.
In my view, that is a very healthy scientific attitude.
Re Newtonian physics working, of course it does, when applied at the right scale. Quantum physics also works, at its appropriate scale. Who knows what physics we'll need to reach ToE. It seems as though quantum physics is insufficient.
Scientific proof? I once had a phone conversation with a lady who wanted to know if I could prove something wouldn't happen. I replied that science doesn't work like that, and I couldn't prove 100% that the sun would rise tomorrow, but I'd be fairly sure it would.
Science sets a high bar. To be even regarded as science, you have to be able to predict with your theory and see it come to pass, and your theory needs to be falsifiable. AGW fails this test and string theory does too.
Quantum theory is pretty good and relativity isn't bad either, but if we find out eventually that we're all living in a hologram, or that reality and space don't exist at all, it wouldn't be a total shock.
Ladbrokes Clinton Firewall finder looks like a very interesting market.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
The one that tempts me on a Trump wins/virtual tie scenario is New Hampshire. If Hillary wins any above that Trump has not won or even come that close.
I agree; I just can't see NH being a big fan of Trump, and it's economy has been doing pretty well.
Personally, I don't see NH going Trump. Any of the 16 other candidates, and it would be in the GOP column. So to me, Colorado or even Wisconsin are key, with PA being the one with the potential for a yuuuge surprise on the night (lots of redneck areas, so it depends on low turnout in Philly).
"Donald Trump Jr. tweeted an image Monday, which had a Trump-Pence logo, that said: "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem."
Amusingly, the Skittles marketing team put out a statement;
"the company doesn't believe the comparison is appropriate."
Before adding;
"Our whole marketing strategy's now completely f*cked"
"And then — it grieves me to say this — there’s Neil Young. He objected to Trump using his clever and ironic anthem ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’. The genuinely talented Canadian has announced that he will be supporting leftie Democrat Bernie Sanders for president. Perhaps this is just a fan speaking, but I suspect that’s all because Neil wants to impress the splashtastic leftie eco-loon actress Daryl Hannah, with whom he is currently shacked up.
They spend their time fighting for the rights of red Indians, or whatever we’re meant to call them, and opposing drilling in places where beavers live. Someone please tell Daryl that Neil was for Reagan in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and that, in general, his politics are as idiosyncratic as his music. Almost his entire mid-1980s output would enrage liberals — and that’s before we consider the, uh, counterintuitive feminist statement ‘A Man Needs a Maid’.
Comments
1. USA - 18.6
- EU - 16.5
- EU ex-UK 13.7
2. China - 11.4
3. Japan - 4.4
4. Germany - 3.5
5. UK - 2.8
6. France - 2.5
Hardly mid ranking. Truly an insight into the EUphile mind.
Let's assume that Trump wins. (As it happens, I think he will, and have bet accordingly. This view is obviously subject to change.) And let us assume it is by a narrow margin, and that his "Great Lakes" strategy is a success.
So: that eliminates Texas, Montana, Georgia and Arizona as they should all be easy Republican wins.
I suspect, if Trump wins, then he gets Iowa and Ohio.
So, that leaves North Carolina (I'd reckon Trump takes that in a narrow win scenario), Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire. All of these could be lost by Hillary; not a certain, but could. Maybe £10 on each of these, and on Colorado and Pennsylvania (20-1).
http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/164.png
It's sad really.
"struggling here"
Appreciation of Patrick Troughton.
Legend.
Please rectify asap.
Thank you.
Clinton 50
Trump 45
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/hillary-clinton-regains-momentum-against-donald-trump-poll-n650926
Bloomberg - UK Told It Has Zero Chance of Having Brexit Cake and Eating It http://bloom.bg/2czUoYm
Sounds like hard Brexit to me. I have also moved my investments to cope with Trumps trade war, just in case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_power
The main thing about middle powers is that they prefer to work within a multilateral system.
https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/778003112246153217
And with that thought I am off back to the 12th century for the afternoon. King Stephen versus the Empress Maude, was it the first true English civil war?
In my view, that is a very healthy scientific attitude.
Re Newtonian physics working, of course it does, when applied at the right scale. Quantum physics also works, at its appropriate scale. Who knows what physics we'll need to reach ToE. It seems as though quantum physics is insufficient.
So Politics wins over Economics, and the EU is going to cut its own nose off to spite its face.
So be it. It moves the break up of the whole EU a few steps closer.
You can even combine it with the 1-12 on Texas with Paddy Power for a guaranteed profit.
Montana is a HORRIBLE bet at 16-1, if Montana goes - so most likely does Texas methinks and the population is less hispanic.
Georgia at 7-1 might be worth consideration, though if GA goes then Texas could be in trouble.
Arizona looks terrible at 7-1, seeing as GA is above it in the list and these two states are fairly close in terms of how they might go.
From here on down you're up against Arizona going to Hillary, which makes Iowa, Ohio unappealing at the odds.
North Carolina might be OK at 12-1 but you're up against a narrow path with all the above states working against.
New Jersey at 33-1 might be worth a poke looking further down the list if you expect a Trump landslide...
I've gone for £5 Texas @ 20-1.
More balanced observers might suggest that her recovery from illness has come into play.
Republicans are now favored to hold the Senate in our inaugural 2016 Senate race ratings https://t.co/IVwuO9XEik https://t.co/LL70xCXmJ4
new thread
We know Einsteinian relativity is an incomplete model too as it is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Theory (and various other reasons), just we don't yet know where it breaks down.
For anyone who wants to download the full dataset, it can be found here: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/download.aspx
Hours of amusement.
Science sets a high bar. To be even regarded as science, you have to be able to predict with your theory and see it come to pass, and your theory needs to be falsifiable. AGW fails this test and string theory does too.
Quantum theory is pretty good and relativity isn't bad either, but if we find out eventually that we're all living in a hologram, or that reality and space don't exist at all, it wouldn't be a total shock.
Hours of amusement only for a certain type of person.
Amusingly, the Skittles marketing team put out a statement;
"the company doesn't believe the comparison is appropriate."
Before adding;
"Our whole marketing strategy's now completely f*cked"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/i-want-to-see-president-trump-if-only-because-of-who-hed-annoy/
"And then — it grieves me to say this — there’s Neil Young. He objected to Trump using his clever and ironic anthem ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’. The genuinely talented Canadian has announced that he will be supporting leftie Democrat Bernie Sanders for president. Perhaps this is just a fan speaking, but I suspect that’s all because Neil wants to impress the splashtastic leftie eco-loon actress Daryl Hannah, with whom he is currently shacked up.
They spend their time fighting for the rights of red Indians, or whatever we’re meant to call them, and opposing drilling in places where beavers live. Someone please tell Daryl that Neil was for Reagan in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and that, in general, his politics are as idiosyncratic as his music. Almost his entire mid-1980s output would enrage liberals — and that’s before we consider the, uh, counterintuitive feminist statement ‘A Man Needs a Maid’.