Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

2

Comments

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited July 2017
    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    GIN1138 said:

    Theresa's going to have to get grip when she returns from holiday - Sack Hammond... And Dr Fox!

    Now that's getting personal...

    :(
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Last time Theresa went on holiday, she came back re-energised and called an election.

    This time, she will come back and call a referendum to smash the Remainers !
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    How about this country?

    There aren't any Leavers/Remainers in the USA.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    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?
    In the olden days when the bishops were not running the brothels in Southwark , they were amongst the biggest users of them .
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited July 2017

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    How about this country?

    There aren't any Leavers/Remainers in the USA.
    I don't think we have the same type of survey here, but I would be surprised if it were very different.

    The only friend of mine who has had a gay marriage is Indian, and his family all seemed pretty happy to be there.

    There was also this sensitively done piece on Radio 4 last week:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vgywz0jJWvvRMlHnRSGmNd/im-gay-sikh-and-getting-married

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Lionesses through to the Semi...

    Outshining the blokes...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    surbiton said:

    Last time Theresa went on holiday, she came back re-energised and called an election.

    This time, she will come back and call a referendum to smash the Remainers !

    She may struggle to get that one through cabinet, or maybe not!
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921

    Lionesses through to the Semi...

    Outshining the blokes...

    The English team were physically dominant - skill is fine but power is better.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    slade said:

    Lionesses through to the Semi...

    Outshining the blokes...

    The English team were physically dominant - skill is fine but power is better.
    Not conceeded a goal either.

    Germans out too.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    surbiton said:

    Last time Theresa went on holiday, she came back re-energised and called an election.

    This time, she will come back and call a referendum to smash the Remainers !

    Sounds like the Daily Hate headline already created: Smash the Remainers!

    (With the plus point that it avoids using a French word which was a bit of a shortcoming of their April 19th one.)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    I see the Bank of England may be going on strike:

    https://tinyurl.com/ybkohw7g

    I thought they'd been on strike since March 2009.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited July 2017

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    How about this country?

    There aren't any Leavers/Remainers in the USA.
    I don't think we have the same type of survey here, but I would be surprised if it were very different.

    The only friend of mine who has had a gay marriage is Indian, and his family all seemed pretty happy to be there.

    There was also this sensitively done piece on Radio 4 last week:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vgywz0jJWvvRMlHnRSGmNd/im-gay-sikh-and-getting-married

    Gay sex is illegal in both India and Pakistan.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    What makes you think London was most opposed to gay marriage? Do you have a source for that?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    How about this country?

    There aren't any Leavers/Remainers in the USA.
    I don't think we have the same type of survey here, but I would be surprised if it were very different.

    The only friend of mine who has had a gay marriage is Indian, and his family all seemed pretty happy to be there.

    There was also this sensitively done piece on Radio 4 last week:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vgywz0jJWvvRMlHnRSGmNd/im-gay-sikh-and-getting-married

    Gay sex is illegal in both India and Pakistan.
    Sorry, I thought you were discussing British minorities. I am sure that you are right in the subcontinent being less enlightened, as this sad report from Bengal shows:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/30/global-development-india-child-trafficking
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    A few days before the fall of Constantinople to the armies of Ottoman jihad, some six centuries ago, a strange debate was taking place inside the imperial city. Constantinople then had a very loud senate, stubborn theologians, and merciless philosophers. It was the heir to Greco-Roman civilization, but also host to hot debates — so hot that they effectively isolated the city’s elites from the realities of then-world politics.

    The political establishment of the Byzantines was sharply split over a major question which superseded everything else, including the marching jihad. And that summa matter was: What is the sex of the angels? Are they males or females?

    Thousands of mujahedeen was closing in from all directions, yet in the minds of the most advanced elites of the Mediterranean, determining the gender of the angels was more important. The sultan understood that Constantinople was ripe for the taking. Indeed, it fell like an old apple into his hands — and with it, the last great city of Christendom in the East.


    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207265/weapons-mass-distraction-walid-phares
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

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

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/26/us/pew-muslim-american-survey/index.html

    We have that data from America, where there is a major swing over the decade to a liberal view of homosexuality.
    How about this country?

    There aren't any Leavers/Remainers in the USA.
    I don't think we have the same type of survey here, but I would be surprised if it were very different.

    The only friend of mine who has had a gay marriage is Indian, and his family all seemed pretty happy to be there.

    There was also this sensitively done piece on Radio 4 last week:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vgywz0jJWvvRMlHnRSGmNd/im-gay-sikh-and-getting-married

    Gay sex is illegal in both India and Pakistan.
    Sorry, I thought you were discussing British minorities. I am sure that you are right in the subcontinent being less enlightened, as this sad report from Bengal shows:

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/30/global-development-india-child-trafficking
    You were the one who brought up USA minorities! (that CNN link above!)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    Edward VII was no puritan!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    GeoffM said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    A few days before the fall of Constantinople to the armies of Ottoman jihad, some six centuries ago, a strange debate was taking place inside the imperial city. Constantinople then had a very loud senate, stubborn theologians, and merciless philosophers. It was the heir to Greco-Roman civilization, but also host to hot debates — so hot that they effectively isolated the city’s elites from the realities of then-world politics.

    The political establishment of the Byzantines was sharply split over a major question which superseded everything else, including the marching jihad. And that summa matter was: What is the sex of the angels? Are they males or females?

    Thousands of mujahedeen was closing in from all directions, yet in the minds of the most advanced elites of the Mediterranean, determining the gender of the angels was more important. The sultan understood that Constantinople was ripe for the taking. Indeed, it fell like an old apple into his hands — and with it, the last great city of Christendom in the East.


    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207265/weapons-mass-distraction-walid-phares
    I am sure you think you are making a very telling point Geoff but it's lost on me I'm afraid.

    You seem to have posted a quote from a 2003 article in a GOP rag, about why invading Iraq was the right thing to do !?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    Errr. More opposed than Northern Ireland?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 605

    This isn't that shocking. Looking at this: https://twitter.com/alexmitchelmore/status/890499540515782656 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.

    Your comments are remarkably frank. As an old guy i don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea of gays sex but have never considered it unnatural. There is no doubt that recent events including Brexit do reflect the deep divisions in our society,many of them age and gender related. These changes will continue I suspect, and at an ever faster pace.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    The 1832 Poor Law brought in the workhouse, to replace the older outdoor relief system of Speenham land. I wouldn't say it was a liberal change.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    Edward VII was no puritan!
    I'm not sure if his views on gay marriage were ever recorded but I'd make a guess he was against. Whereas I'd guess his current living descendants are for. That's progress!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Hammond has retracted his threat to become a tax haven if we don't get a good Brexit deal.

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/891769745808273408
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    The 1832 Poor Law brought in the workhouse, to replace the older outdoor relief system of Speenham land. I wouldn't say it was a liberal change.
    I wouldn't say 1832 was Victorian though!

    You point is a good one however. It's not a continuous smooth change, more an inexorable long term trend.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    The 1832 Poor Law brought in the workhouse, to replace the older outdoor relief system of Speenham land. I wouldn't say it was a liberal change.
    Was the workhouse a private enterprise, or was it publicly owned? If it was privately owned, then it would be a liberal change.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    The 1832 Poor Law brought in the workhouse, to replace the older outdoor relief system of Speenham land. I wouldn't say it was a liberal change.
    William IV was King, five years before Victoria!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017

    Hammond has retracted his threat to become a tax haven if we don't get a good Brexit deal.

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/891769745808273408

    Blimey, Hammond is going up in my estimation. Seems like the only grown-up in the cabinet. Shame the tory members would never have him as leader!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    https://msdnshared.blob.core.windows.net/media/TNBlogsFS/BlogFileStorage/blogs_msdn/research/WindowsLiveWriter/Climategateglobalwarmingandprovenance_A683/image_thumb.png
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    edited July 2017
    2nd heads up.... TSE is slacking so far as indeed is old Foxy.

    *** PB Fantasy Footie League 2017/18 ***

    For those PBers wishing to once again lock horns in the world of fantasy football, I've set up the League again. All welcome!

    The league link is 662822-332043
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
    Cost. It isn't like saying Why not wear a seatbelt if the car is fitted with one. Complying with Kyoto and Paris and so on costs trillions of dollars, many of them wasted even on a warmist view of things (burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here, for instance).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    2nd heads up.... TSE is slacking so far as indeed is old Foxy.

    *** PB Fantasy Footie League 2017/18 ***

    For those PBers wishing to once again lock horns in the world of fantasy football, I've set up the League again. All welcome!

    The league link is 662822-332043

    I am struggling to remember how to join the league. Do I need to pick my team first?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
    Cost. It isn't like saying Why not wear a seatbelt if the car is fitted with one. Complying with Kyoto and Paris and so on costs trillions of dollars, many of them wasted even on a warmist view of things (burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here, for instance).
    Cost of renewables will soon undercut fossil fuels...

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

    Also, much of the 'cost' is actually employing people to do real jobs, building and installing generation plant or insulation etc., so stimulates demand. (As opposed to money spent on fossil fuels which largely goes to Middle Eastern or Russian oligarchs (and in the case of Saudi, a proportion is recycled into terroism).)

    PS I agree burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here seem madness btw. When we have wind, solar and tidal energy resources we could invest in. I presume though that the fossil fuel burnt in transportation is less than the fossil equivalent of the wood pellets transported.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
    Cost. It isn't like saying Why not wear a seatbelt if the car is fitted with one. Complying with Kyoto and Paris and so on costs trillions of dollars, many of them wasted even on a warmist view of things (burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here, for instance).
    But if the benefit outweighs the cost then it is a good investment.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
    Cost. It isn't like saying Why not wear a seatbelt if the car is fitted with one. Complying with Kyoto and Paris and so on costs trillions of dollars, many of them wasted even on a warmist view of things (burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here, for instance).
    To a point, I agree. There does need to be a critical analysis of the effectiveness of green schemes, but that does not mean scrapping them lock, stock and barrel.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    Not a chance! A few decades ?!?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    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.
    I think the case that the earth is warming is strong to overwhelming. It's the additional claims that it is caused by man, and that man can usefully try to stop it now it has started, and that the former entails the latter, and the implied claim that scientific models are crystal balls, that I have problems with.
    That's my view too. I'd call myself a "mild sceptic".
    It does require adaption though. Possibly a mass exodus from the Bengal delta to the increasingly temperate north may focus minds, albeit a bit late to stop it.
    Also... even if human activity has not caused global warming (though I think it has) cutting greenhouse gases can help dampen the negative effects of warming, so why wouldn't we do it?
    Cost. It isn't like saying Why not wear a seatbelt if the car is fitted with one. Complying with Kyoto and Paris and so on costs trillions of dollars, many of them wasted even on a warmist view of things (burning fossil fuel to ship carbon friendly wood pellets from the USA to here, for instance).
    But if the benefit outweighs the cost then it is a good investment.
    If.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I think it is driven by mass communication and the arts (books, films and TV) that portray "others" in a sympathetic light or from their point of view. This, combined with rising standards of living and education so that people don't feel threatened by "others", is what is driving liberal values. But those that feel threatened or lack empathy remain illiberal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    Only one sensible thing to do: live on a hill and learn to fish for your supper.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    .

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    Only one sensible thing to do: live on a hill and learn to fish for your supper.

    https://grahamhancock.com/drsunilatlantis/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    Only one sensible thing to do: live on a hill and learn to fish for your supper.

    I alright Jack... our house is 86m above sea level, and it would only rise by 75m if the Anarctic and Greenland ice caps melt. No idea why I should be bothered :lol:
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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 ca

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    You have missed the point. If the rate of rise was more rapid 14000 years ago than it is now, that invalidates the argument that the rise we are seeing today is so rapid that only agw can account for it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cool.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago wa
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    Only one sensible thing to do: live on a hill and learn to fish for your supper.

    I alright Jack... our house is 86m above sea level, and it would only rise by 75m if the Anarctic and Greenland ice caps melt. No idea why I should be bothered :lol:
    I am above 100 meters, so should be fine. On the plus side it would save me having to move closer to the sea, if it moves closer to me.

    London and East Anglia would be gone, which would be a pity as I rather like Norfolk. Perhaps Primrose Hill could be renamed Primrose Island.

    Or maybe we could treat our planet with respect.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why has Paul Joseph Watson suddenly become "famous" recently? I don't know, but he got mentioned in several mainstream newspapers over the last few days. This is his YouTube channel:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive/videos
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    The warming going on is miniscule compared to the warming 14,000 years ago and that wot occurred 11,600 years ago.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    You have missed the point. If the rate of rise was more rapid 14000 years ago than it is now, that invalidates the argument that the rise we are seeing today is so rapid that only agw can account for it.
    Nonsense! We've seen no evidence that the rate of temperature rise was greater 14k years ago than now; Sunil's chart was about sea level rises. Sea levels do not rise linearly compared with temperature. So far, most of the sea level rise we have seen this past century has been due to thermal expansion. If significant ice cap melting takes place, as it is predicted to do if global temprature rise further, the sea level rises would become significantly more rapid and extensive.

    In any event, even if global warming were not caused by human activity (and I think it is) we should still do as much as we can to mitigate it. Polio is not caused by human activity but we do what we can to prevent it affecting ourselves, our families, and humanity at large.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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 ca

    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 oceangotten warmer.
    The warming going on is miniscule compared to the warming 14,000 years ago and that wot occurred 11,600 years ago.
    There are going
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    You have missed the point. If the rate of rise was more rapid 14000 years ago than it is now, that invalidates the argument that the rise we are seeing today is so rapid that only agw can account for it.
    Assuming climate scientists have measured correctly what happened 14 000 years ago, but cannot do that same over the last century.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    On topic, my impression is that nothing much is happening to voting intentions at the moment. The conferences should shake things up.

    The gay sex poll is interesting, though. There seems to be a consistent pattern that the elderrly are much more Tory, much more pro-Brexit, and much less socially liberal than everyone else, but which is the driving factor is less clear. Are they Tories because they're less socially liberal, or socially conservatives because they're Tories, or....?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    The warming going on is miniscule compared to the warming 14,000 years ago and that wot occurred 11,600 years ago.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cool.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago wa
    Over what periods?
    A few decades.
    I'm struggling to find a source for that. Could you help meet?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

    OK, not a source for the temperature rise, but the concomitant sea level rise was 20 metres or so in 450 or so years. (44 mm a year).

    But:

    "This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."
    The clue is in the title Sunil... meltwater. The current sea level rises we are seeing are caused by thermal expansion. If/when major ice caps such as Greenland/Antarctica melt, sea level rises would be dramatic and catastrophic.
    Only one sensible thing to do: live on a hill and learn to fish for your supper.

    I alright Jack... our house is 86m above sea level, and it would only rise by 75m if the Anarctic and Greenland ice caps melt. No idea why I should be bothered :lol:
    I am above 100 meters, so should be fine. On the plus side it would save me having to move closer to the sea, if it moves closer to me.

    London and East Anglia would be gone, which would be a pity as I rather like Norfolk. Perhaps Primrose Hill could be renamed Primrose Island.

    Or maybe we could treat our planet with respect.
    Gets my vote!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    On topic, my impression is that nothing much is happening to voting intentions at the moment. The conferences should shake things up.

    The gay sex poll is interesting, though. There seems to be a consistent pattern that the elderrly are much more Tory, much more pro-Brexit, and much less socially liberal than everyone else, but which is the driving factor is less clear. Are they Tories because they're less socially liberal, or socially conservatives because they're Tories, or....?

    In any event, they are a dying breed!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Barnesian said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I think it is driven by mass communication and the arts (books, films and TV) that portray "others" in a sympathetic light or from their point of view. This, combined with rising standards of living and education so that people don't feel threatened by "others", is what is driving liberal values. But those that feel threatened or lack empathy remain illiberal.
    So-called liberals would do well to try and have some understanding of and empathy with those who feel threatened - perhaps by understanding why they feel threatened - rather than baldly asserting that those who are - in liberals' eyes - illiberal must therefore lack empathy.

    Liberals do their cause no good at all with this sort of dismissive attitude to those who have a different view.

    Liberals don't generally feel threatened by "others" because those "others" don't often impinge on their lives in a negative way. When and if that starts happening let's see what their views are then.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited July 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.
    I am not sure I'd equate licentiousness with liberal values. Plus, whilst I fully agree they were very buttoned-up about sex, the Victorians did move forward liberal values in a number of areas: univesral education, treatment of the poor (relative to what had gone before).

    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I think it is driven by mass communication and the arts (books, films and TV) that portray "others" in a sympathetic light or from their point of view. This, combined with rising standards of living and education so that people don't feel threatened by "others", is what is driving liberal values. But those that feel threatened or lack empathy remain illiberal.
    So-called liberals would do well to try and have some understanding of and empathy with those who feel threatened - perhaps by understanding why they feel threatened - rather than baldly asserting that those who are - in liberals' eyes - illiberal must therefore lack empathy.

    Liberals do their cause no good at all with this sort of dismissive attitude to those who have a different view.

    Liberals don't generally feel threatened by "others" because those "others" don't often impinge on their lives in a negative way. When and if that starts happening let's see what their views are then.
    Well please do tell how a gay couple getting married or having sex has impinged on your life in a negative way...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    This is the music that everyone used to listen to on Radio 4 at 5pm from about 1990 to Princess Diana's death in 1997:

    https://audioboom.com/posts/1925015-bbc-radio-4-pm-theme-music-as-of-1996
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    The gay sex poll is interesting, though. There seems to be a consistent pattern that the elderrly are much more Tory, much more pro-Brexit, and much less socially liberal than everyone else, but which is the driving factor is less clear. Are they Tories because they're less socially liberal, or socially conservatives because they're Tories, or....?

    There's a cohort of people who seem to be suffering from post-Blair shock disorder, and on any given question their subconscious reasoning is to think the opposite of whatever Blair would say. (And just as the hard-left saw Blair as a Tory, these people saw Cameron as just another Blair which is why the syndrome lives on.)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:


    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I think it is driven by mass communication and the arts (books, films and TV) that portray "others" in a sympathetic light or from their point of view. This, combined with rising standards of living and education so that people don't feel threatened by "others", is what is driving liberal values. But those that feel threatened or lack empathy remain illiberal.
    So-called liberals would do well to try and have some understanding of and empathy with those who feel threatened - perhaps by understanding why they feel threatened - rather than baldly asserting that those who are - in liberals' eyes - illiberal must therefore lack empathy.

    Liberals do their cause no good at all with this sort of dismissive attitude to those who have a different view.

    Liberals don't generally feel threatened by "others" because those "others" don't often impinge on their lives in a negative way. When and if that starts happening let's see what their views are then.
    Well please do tell how a gay couple getting married has impinged on your life in a negative way...
    I couldn't care less. My own son is gay and I look forward to the day he gets married. I have a number of close relatives who are gay and have got married. I think this is a very welcome development.

    But others might well feel differently about, for instance, having their community changed by an influx of foreigners ("others") and might resent being deemed illiberal without any attempt to empathise with them or understand why they feel as they do. Empathy and understanding should not just be reserved for those we approve of.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    The gay sex poll is interesting, though. There seems to be a consistent pattern that the elderrly are much more Tory, much more pro-Brexit, and much less socially liberal than everyone else, but which is the driving factor is less clear. Are they Tories because they're less socially liberal, or socially conservatives because they're Tories, or....?

    There's a cohort of people who seem to be suffering from post-Blair shock disorder, and on any given question their subconscious reasoning is to think the opposite of whatever Blair would say. (And just as the hard-left saw Blair as a Tory, these people saw Cameron as just another Blair which is why the syndrome lives on.)
    How many Asian people think Gay sex is natural? How many Black people?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Cyclefree said:

    I couldn't care less. My own son is gay and I look forward to the day he gets married. I have a number of close relatives who are gay and have got married. I think this is a very welcome development.

    But others might well feel differently about, for instance, having their community changed by an influx of foreigners ("others") and might resent being deemed illiberal without any attempt to empathise with them or understand why they feel as they do. Empathy and understanding should not just be reserved for those we approve of.

    If I remember correctly you have returned to this theme more than once: that it is incumbent on the interlocutor to understand and empathise with the person making the argument. Whilst your point is good technique if one wants to persuade somebody, I tend to the other side in this respect: ideas are true/false regardless of the emotional stance of the discussant. Although as I say it, I can't help thinking there are obvious exceptions.. :(

    Also you are neglecting the possibility that the other person has understood you, does empathise with you, and thinks you're wrong anyway. Empathy and understanding are not sufficient for agreement.

    On a happier note, congratulations on your recent career move. Good luck and I hope it turns out well

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059

    2nd heads up.... TSE is slacking so far as indeed is old Foxy.

    *** PB Fantasy Footie League 2017/18 ***

    For those PBers wishing to once again lock horns in the world of fantasy football, I've set up the League again. All welcome!

    The league link is 662822-332043

    I am struggling to remember how to join the league. Do I need to pick my team first?
    Yup I think so.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846


    Nonsense! We've seen no evidence that the rate of temperature rise was greater 14k years ago than now; Sunil's chart was about sea level rises. Sea levels do not rise linearly compared with temperature. So far, most of the sea level rise we have seen this past century has been due to thermal expansion. If significant ice cap melting takes place, as it is predicted to do if global temprature rise further, the sea level rises would become significantly more rapid and extensive.

    In any event, even if global warming were not caused by human activity (and I think it is) we should still do as much as we can to mitigate it. Polio is not caused by human activity but we do what we can to prevent it affecting ourselves, our families, and humanity at large.

    We know the rate of change was far greater 14,000 years ago than it is now.

    We know this because we are able to see that the change coming out of the Younger Dryas was about 10 degrees Centigrade in less than 50 years. Changes in and out of glacial periods happened extremely rapidly. Indeed the entry into the Younger Dryas from the Allerød oscillation, which drove man out of the British Isles again for several hundred years also happened in a matter of a few decades. Both the amount and rate of change are extremely well known and easy to ascertain.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    There are going to be many reasons for periods getting warmer or cooler: volcanic eruptions have caused significant periods of cooling in the past, for example. This would appear to be one of the sharpest increases in temperatures in the recent past, unless you know otherwise.
    The jump in temperature 14,000 years ago was aroud 12 degrees, and that in 11,600 years ago was around 10 degrees. Of course, there was the Younger Dryas cooling in between (12,800 years ago).
    Over what periods?
    In both cases about 50 years.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited July 2017
    I rather doubt that gay men have much to fear from supposedly elderly Brexit voters who have doubts about gay marriage.

    Unfortunately liberals won't of course acknowledge that there may be other sections of UK society that have far more negative views about homosexuality - and may pose a far greater future threat to gay rights and equality in this country. When 52 per cent of said group think gay men should be put in prison - ten times the rate of the general population - and of the remaining 48 per cent a whole 30 per cent have 'no opinion' on the matter and also 47 per cent think they should not be allowed to be teachers perhaps we have a problem - and it's not with 75 year old Brexiteers.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    This isn't that shocking. Looking at this: https://twitter.com/alexmitchelmore/status/890499540515782656 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.

    Its asking a scientific question 'found in nature' (on which people may or may not be well informed) not a moral one ('wrong' - which people are entitled to a view upon)......I wonder if that would have produced a different answer - it would be perfectly possible to answer differently to the different questions....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    The Economist addresses the 'natural' question:

    https://learnmore.economist.com/story/58d26bae30959d5230d356b8#!/page/1/1
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Allan said:

    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.
    A far better change would be reforming stamp duty, which is currently so badly drafted thanks to George Osborne's meddling that it is practically impossible to buy a house before selling the one you are in at the time - which means you have to complete two sales and move all on the same day. Utter madness and very stressful.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    rcs1000 said:


    The 1832 Poor Law brought in the workhouse, to replace the older outdoor relief system of Speenham land. I wouldn't say it was a liberal change.

    Was the workhouse a private enterprise, or was it publicly owned? If it was privately owned, then it would be a liberal change.
    Publicly owned. The act required all parish (I think) councils to set them up.

    But you've got that backwards. In Victorian times this was a Liberal approach, indeed it was based on Benthamism. Public was Liberal/Radical, private was Conservative. That's why most of the great municipal works - water supplies, gas supplies etc. - were initiated by Liberal councils.

    That said, it always amused me when Tristram Hunt cited Joe Chamberlain as his inspiration for his masterly record in such things, apparently unaware that Chamberlain split from the Liberals over Ireland and finished his career as acting leader of the Conservative Party.

    (BTW - for practical reasons outdoor relief was never entirely abolished. It was very widespread in areas with seasonal employment due to a shortage of space in workhouses at peak times.)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,772
    Barnesian said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.


    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I think it is driven by mass communication and the arts (books, films and TV) that portray "others" in a sympathetic light or from their point of view. This, combined with rising standards of living and education so that people don't feel threatened by "others", is what is driving liberal values. But those that feel threatened or lack empathy remain illiberal.
    There have been times and places that suggest otherwise. Sixteenth century Europe persecuted religious dissidents, witches, and homosexuals much more ferociously than in previous centuries, despite a huge growth in literacy and progress in the arts. Central Europe was a far more brutal place to live in in 1950 than in 1900. The Middle East generally is much less liberal today than 50 or 60 years ago, and so on.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,772

    On topic, my impression is that nothing much is happening to voting intentions at the moment. The conferences should shake things up.

    The gay sex poll is interesting, though. There seems to be a consistent pattern that the elderrly are much more Tory, much more pro-Brexit, and much less socially liberal than everyone else, but which is the driving factor is less clear. Are they Tories because they're less socially liberal, or socially conservatives because they're Tories, or....?

    In any event, they are a dying breed!
    Conservatives, eurosceptics, opponents of mass immigration etc. Have been a dying breed for decades, but somehow still exist in very large numbers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Sean_F said:



    There have been times and places that suggest otherwise. Sixteenth century Europe persecuted religious dissidents, witches, and homosexuals much more ferociously than in previous centuries, despite a huge growth in literacy and progress in the arts. Central Europe was a far more brutal place to live in in 1950 than in 1900. The Middle East generally is much less liberal today than 50 or 60 years ago, and so on.

    Not sure your point on 'religious dissidents' is necessarily correct. Have you ever heard of the Cathar heresy?

    The reason it was more noticeable in the 16th century is quite simply because the sharing of ideas thanks to the printing press meant counter-orthodoxy was much more widespread.

    That said I would agree with the main thrust of your point.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited July 2017
    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening
    Ah but remainers are like that: loud and proud, loud and proud. If they think it is the right thing to do then anyone who thinks differently is obviously a bigot or stupid or deluded.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Market dynamics are pushing the coal industry out of business, and driving natural gas and renewables to the forefront—sometimes in surprising places. Near the end of the film, Gore visits Georgetown, Texas—“the reddest city in the reddest county in Texas”—and meets its conservative mayor, Dale Ross, who proudly pronounces it will be the first city in Texas to go 100 percent renewable. “We have a moral and ethical obligation to leave the planet better than we found it,” Ross explains. Perhaps environmentalism is not as partisan as Congress and the president make it seem.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/al-gore-returns-with-an-ever-more-inconvenient-truth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScientificAmerican-News+(Content:+News)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Gay sex should be celebrated as an example of human ingenuity - making use of the equipment available for new and creative purposes.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    nunuone said:

    tlg86 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

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

    Hush now! That would be embarrassing.

    The fact that London was the part of the country most opposed to gay marriage gives quite a big hint about what the answer may be.
    On this survey London comes out +24 in thinking gay sex is natural. The lowest margin is +6 in the midlands and Wales.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bpe58p
    Labour and libdems have similar levels of socially liberal views but Tories majority socially conservative.

    Overall that poll shows there is room for a socially conservative party in Britain, one even more so then UKIP ever were, *if* people didn't vote on economic issues.........which many in America seemingly don't.
    Maybe there is still room for a socially conservative party today but it's a room that's getting smaller every year.

    Liberal values are continuing their long, slow but inexorable rise to ascendancy.

    Thankfully!
    While on some issues you are right, the trend is not always in that direction. We saw the licentuousness of the Restoration and Georgians morph into the purtanical Victorians for example.


    I take your point though; there is no law of nature that means liberal values will continue to be come ever more acceptable. But I think it will take something major and nasty to stop the current trend, e.g. global pandemic or global natural disaster, major war, revolution, brexit - you know, something really nasty.
    I think there is ever widening empathy and tolerance that has embraced slaves, then females, then homosexuals, then foreigners, then intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins and will slowly widen to cover the animal kingdom so that we all become vegetarian.

    I remain illiberal.
    There have been times and places that suggest otherwise. Sixteenth century Europe persecuted religious dissidents, witches, and homosexuals much more ferociously than in previous centuries, despite a huge growth in literacy and progress in the arts. Central Europe was a far more brutal place to live in in 1950 than in 1900. The Middle East generally is much less liberal today than 50 or 60 years ago, and so on.

    Wasn't it more the case that there were more religious dissidents in 16th century Europe than there had been previously? The ones that did exist in previous centuries were dealt with pretty savagely - see the Cathars, for example.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Gay sex should be celebrated as an example of human ingenuity - making use of the equipment available for new and creative purposes.

    From a species point of view, that’s the problem. It’s not creative!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening

    At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

    http://www.devonlive.com/tim/story-29207761-detail/story.html

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Extreme candidates for the House of Representatives do worse than moderates because they mobilize the opposing party to turn out to vote, according to new research from Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson of Stanford University.

    Political scientists and campaign experts have been divided for decades about whether candidates are successful when they win over swing voters — those who aren’t loyal to any party — or when they encourage members of their own party to show up at the polls. The research suggests that when it comes to ideologically extreme candidates, the deciding factor might be the other party’s turnout.


    washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/29/extreme-candidates-lose-because-they-boost-the-other-partys-turnout-research-finds/

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    It seems Project Fear missed an opportunity.

    VOTE LEAVE AND GAYS WILL BE IMPRISONED
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening

    At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

    http://www.devonlive.com/tim/story-29207761-detail/story.html

    Cameron and Cooper preach the gospel of remain, not for them stagnant wages and people living 15 to a room
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening

    At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

    http://www.devonlive.com/tim/story-29207761-detail/story.html

    Cameron and Cooper preach the gospel of remain, not for them stagnant wages and people living 15 to a room

    At what point post-Brexit will wages start to steam ahead, do you reckon? Which sectors will see the biggest rises?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    DavidL said:

    you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that.

    The Economist (linked above) has an interesting take on how homosexuality may play a part in evolution....but I agree, what's 'natural' and what's 'right' are not necessarily synonyms....
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening

    At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

    http://www.devonlive.com/tim/story-29207761-detail/story.html

    Cameron and Cooper preach the gospel of remain, not for them stagnant wages and people living 15 to a room

    At what point post-Brexit will wages start to steam ahead, do you reckon? Which sectors will see the biggest rises?

    Cave owners renting them out as we all lose our homes
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    DavidL said:

    I think the word "natural" is ambiguous in this context. If you interpret it as "as nature intended " then you may take the view that the purpose of sex is the passing on of genes and that gay sex does not accord with that. If it is interpreted as "something I am perfectly ok with" that may give a different answer.

    Personally I would answer affirmatively to both since sex is clearly intended to be recreational as well as procreative.

    I dont really care about gays having sex per se

    but I just wish remainers would stop doing it on my front lawn every evening

    At least we are out and proud. People like James Dyson and Tim Martin preach the harsh Brexit gospel, but not for people like them. Of course.

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

    http://www.devonlive.com/tim/story-29207761-detail/story.html

    Cameron and Cooper preach the gospel of remain, not for them stagnant wages and people living 15 to a room

    At what point post-Brexit will wages start to steam ahead, do you reckon? Which sectors will see the biggest rises?

    So your remainy creed already accepts low wages and the no hope economy ?

    What ever happened to the high skill high wage economy Blair proclaimed ?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    It seems Project Fear missed an opportunity.

    VOTE LEAVE AND GAYS WILL BE IMPRISONED

    I thought it was Vote Leave to prevent tens of millions of savage Turks descending on our green and pleasant land.

This discussion has been closed.