Print Story Free speech
Diary
By Breaker (Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:17:30 AM EST) (all tags)
For the dumb.

Inside: MLP OVERLOAD!

Breakermatic Menace Threshold: E_OVERFLOW.



Best placed to weather the financial storm Page 82 in Acrobat, page label 81.  At about 13% of GDP, we are running at a deficit greater than Ireland, Iceland and the US. You can go straight to the chart on BoM

Bear in mind that "Countries in a strong fiscal position before the crisis managed to limit their deficits to -2%" - OECD footnote on the page of the graph.  Nobel winner Paul Krugman weighs in with "Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself"

All this against a backdrop of one in five (or two million) British children now live in households where neither parent has a job.  "We will lift children out of poverty"

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

Is there anything that this useless government of no talents hasn't fucked up?

BNP potentially in line for 1.5€ of EU funding, whilst European Commission kommissars force Lloyds to divest branch holdings to ensure competition.  Vive la EU, indeed.

CMD not to offer EU treaty referendum despite "cast iron" guarantee he would.  That's going to split his vote to UKIP/BNP and could potentially allow Labour a shot at a hung parliament.

Andrew Neather, a government advisor during the Bliar years, after setting various factions alight with his claim "the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration [...] I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity" now backtracks, and actually makes sense on the state of immigration and the discussion thereof in UKia:

The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati [...] The Left, however, will immediately accuse anyone who raises immigration as an issue as "playing the race card"

There's still a little disparity between those two articles though, just can't put my finger on it.  In any case he is right in that we don't seem to have had any kind of informed, temperate debate on immigration in UKia in the last decade.  Any debate that has been had ignores the elephant in the room - under our implementation of recent Eastern Europe accession states we cannot bar entry, and unlike France and Germany impose no bar on access to public funds to immediate arrivals from the EU. 

Unlike say, MBW, who for the entire 6 years of her working, aside from the NHS had no recourse to public funds.

Meanwhile, a former Home Secretary John Reid admits Government made mistakes with immigration.  As does current Home Secretary Johnson.

On the plus side, for all you man made climate change fetishists, the world is not going to end if it gets a bit warmer.

Yet another government IT FAIL.

Only 6 and a bit more months before a General Election.

< Arrr! | Maybe we should've had a Unity Candle >
Free speech | 74 comments (74 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:25:29 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



Thats a bit harsh by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:46:57 AM EST
Since Breaker isn't actually thrashing around on the floor screaming incoherently, it is quite unfair to compare his posts to the Daily Mail.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
They really by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:02:12 AM EST
Pulled out all the stops on that one, didn't they?


[ Parent ]
Allegedly by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #27 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:39:40 AM EST
It originally had a picture of Hitler to illustrate how science == evil, but that got replaced at some point.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
It did by priestess (4.00 / 1) #29 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:45:47 AM EST
I saw it with the Hitler-Pic still in place.

Lordy.

Pre.........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Reminds me of a Mark Thomas gig .... by gpig (4.00 / 3) #31 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:50:36 AM EST
At the end of each show he asks the audience to vote on a new 'policy', one time they came up with:
Require the Daily Mail to display the text "The newspaper that supported Hitler" under its masthead.

---
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:36:55 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
He is now by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:42:57 AM EST
My goodness. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:47:23 PM EST
I've never actually read the Daily Mail before. It's like a sort of legit version of adequcy.org. Perhaps they would give me a job... 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
"man made climate change fetishists" by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:10:16 AM EST
What do you mean?

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

The opposite by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:31:11 AM EST
Of "man made climate change deniers".


[ Parent ]
Fetish isn't the opposite of deny! by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:36:53 AM EST
What are you trying to say? It isn't very clear

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:41:30 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Tsk. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #7 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:45:59 AM EST
Surely not.


[ Parent ]
It's not by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:47:53 AM EST
But if those who don't think the science behind MMCC is correct are "deniers" then those who take the science as settled fact are fetishists. (take meaning 3).


[ Parent ]
Blind devotion? by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:55:15 AM EST
What about forming an opinion based on the available evidence?

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
That'd put you by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #14 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:00:47 AM EST
In the "deniers" camp I am afraid.


[ Parent ]
No it wouldn't by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:03:40 AM EST
Where the fuck did you get that from?

Scientific consensus on climate change.

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Have you read by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:18:28 AM EST
The audit?


[ Parent ]
I haven't, no by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:20:07 AM EST
What is it? Who's it by?

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
It's a scientist by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:29:50 AM EST
Looking into the data.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:39:44 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Quis trollet ipsos trolles? by gpig (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:46:53 AM EST
Nice one :)
---
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
So, by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #33 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:59:02 AM EST
The science isn't settled on that one yet then?


[ Parent ]
And also by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:20:11 AM EST
Don't see that by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:35:51 AM EST
On the antonyms list for deny.

Acceders, acknowledgers, admitters are the top three possibilities.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Or also by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:04:57 AM EST
Believers.


[ Parent ]
Nope by gpig (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:21:00 AM EST
Because of course by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:59:53 AM EST
Some interpretations of scientific data are more equal than others.


[ Parent ]
They have to be by gpig (4.00 / 1) #42 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:22:16 PM EST
That's how science works. Some interpretations of the data make more sense than others. A hypothesis is proposed, in a paper with data and reasoning to back it up. Others try to falsify it, or present alternative explanations.

Forget for a moment the particular case in hand (climate). If every possible view of the data on a given subject is given equal weight, regardless of plausibility, you end up with a complete fucking mess. You could write a paper now using the phlogiston explanation for combustion -- should I give that equal weight to the new-fangled 'oxygen' theory? Should I spend equal time discussing it?

Now, if you want to argue that a particular interpretation in this particular area has been neglected, I don't fault you for trying. While my reading around the subject (and talking to the scientists I work with) has convinced me otherwise, I respect your right to make the point, and I'll listen to what you say.

That said, the general point you just tried to make is, I'm afraid, utter mince.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Scientifically, then by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:21:10 PM EST
I agree with you absolutely, in the general case.  Science should indeed give precedence and prominence to the more likely theories.

The original comment was really a dig at how the science of climate change has been politicised, propagandised and the casualty has been scientific rigour. 

Too many vested interested (including paid for scientists on both sides) are now in play for any universal truth to be declared, and accepted.

The argument for man made climate change has been irreparably damaged with the "denier" tag that proponents attach to their detractors. 

Instead of arguing their figures, and the science, it's gone the way of smear.  In many circles, the word "denier" is usually prefixed with "Holocaust".

That's the level of debate right now.  Not pretty, or scientific is it?


[ Parent ]
I agree to some extent by gpig (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:00:22 PM EST
On one side, are people who have been arguing against fossil fuel use -- maybe because they'll run out one day, maybe because they cause other problems (respiratory disease, oil slicks, the unholy mess that mountaintop removal mining causes). They will jump uncritically on to the cause of climate change, because they have other reasons to favour that outcome.

On the other side, are people who see the idea of human-caused climate change as something that will inconvenience them or worse, if certain measures are taken to try and prevent it. So, they go and look for a reason not to believe in it.

In the middle are people with no preconception, or who are willing to change their view if strong enough evidence is presented. I'd be surprised if that's more than 2% of the population.

The argument for man made climate change has been irreparably damaged with the "denier" tag that proponents attach to their detractors.

I agree, "denier" has no place in scientific debate. If a scientist takes a point of view their logic or their results can be attacked -- but a label like that is far too close to ad hominem for my liking.

Incidentally, I think there's quite enough stuff that needs doing in terms of energy production and use which makes sense whether you believe in human-caused climate change or not that politically it should be a non-argument.

Unfortunately, "this action makes sense whether you believe this theory or not" is too subtle an argument for public discourse.

(Unless you're advocating geoengineering, in which case, get the fuck off my planet).
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
I do believe by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:12:47 PM EST
this action makes sense whether you believe this theory or not
Does actually have some merit.  Probably not the same as many that would use the argument, but there you go.

Should we be trying to husband our limited resources?  Bloody right we should.

The problem is that the action that is sanctioned is heavily politicised, and therefore scientifically useless. 

Windfarms in the UK is a screaming example of not making any sense.

Cold fusion research, clean coal or cleaner, safer nuclear options, there are scientific arguments to be had.


[ Parent ]
No by gpig (4.00 / 1) #50 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:13:12 PM EST
There are some windfarm sites in the UK that make sense. Unfortunately, for reasons I can't fathom, it's been given undue emphasis over other energy sources (and energy savings).

Fusion research is a great idea, but even the most optimistic estimates put commercial plants 20 years out.

Clean coal is a pipedream, the technology is barely at prototype stage. I think we should forget about it, and instead concentrate on replacing coal with something else. Even if scrubbing the exhaust works (and can be done using a sane amount of energy), there's still the problem of coal ash.

Fission nuclear is probably going to be necessary, unfortunately. I still have a problem with waste that has a half-life in the thousands of years; I realise most people don't think that far ahead.

I think the best bet for medium-term energy supply is solar. Unfortunately for the UK, that means being reliant on other countries for our energy, probably in North Africa. Still, we'd be swapping out Russia and the Middle East.

Then again, the best quick gains that could be made in this area would be to give everyone free home insulation, and free black-pipe solar heating, starting with the worst insulated and heated houses. That would be far more cost-effective than renewable subsidy.

(This is my opinion on the basis of accumulated reading, but I largely agree with this guy: http://withouthotair.com/ . If you're interested in energy policy at all, his book makes a good read).
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Wind makes no sense. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #55 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:31:26 AM EST
You still need another source to back it up, and the windfarms do not even break even on cost.

Why not build the backup as your main and have done with it?

I shall have a look for that book; thanks for the link.


[ Parent ]
The source I quoted by gpig (2.00 / 0) #58 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:20:59 AM EST
deals with the 'backup' problem using energy storage. (He also goes into energy demand cycles in some detail, and shows that this isn't as huge a problem as everyone assumes).

I'll admit that windfarms probably don't pay for themselves in financial terms. Neither does nuclear. We'll likely need both to avoid a supply crisis.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Energy storage? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #61 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:49:33 AM EST
Which presumably means batteries?

Not too eco friendly though is it?

We already will be facing a supply crisis by 2012, if some sources are to be believed...


[ Parent ]
Could be batteries by gpig (2.00 / 0) #63 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:56:37 AM EST
The options are:

 * flood a couple of valleys
 * use batteries as storage

While both of those have their downsides, if it provides the ability to get off coal, it'll be a net positive environmentally.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
"Flood a couple of valleys" by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #64 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:07:01 AM EST
How ineffecient is that?


[ Parent ]
The only efficiency number I can find by gpig (2.00 / 0) #65 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:19:56 AM EST
is for Dinorwig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

which is 75% efficient. That was built in the mid-70s, I don't doubt we could knock a few % off that now. Still an impressive piece of tech, it goes from 0 to 1.8GW in 16 seconds.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Colour me impressed. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #66 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:36:48 AM EST
I will admit I was expecting something closer to 30%.


[ Parent ]
Not so surprising by gpig (2.00 / 0) #67 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:38:02 AM EST
Electric motors are very efficient, and turbine technology has had a lot of time to mature. Hydro power is a combination of the two. Remember that the 75% figure for Dinorwig is a two-way efficiency, electric -> potential kinetic and back again. For 'one-way' hydro power (e.g. a river dam with turbines) the efficiency would be greater.

One of the newer renewable ideas that looks interesting is tidal lagoons, basically you build a big walled area near the coast with turbines in the walls. When the tide rises, you let water in to the area through the turbines, generating electricity. When the tide is low, you let water out, generating more electricity. (Last I heard there was one in planning to be constructed near Swansea).
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Tidal lagoons by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #70 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:35:45 AM EST
A mate of mine's brother was going on about those ~10 years ago.

I think back then the resistance was based solely on the look of the thing, and potential damage to sea life in the vicinity.

But on the whole, it looks a damned sight more reliable and useful than windfarms.


[ Parent ]
There are drawbacks by gpig (2.00 / 0) #71 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:47:36 AM EST
All variants of tidal power will mess with the marine ecosystem to some degree. There have been some holdups while some marine biologists and fluid dynamicists put their heads together and work that one out. (Got this first hand -- I know a guy who did something like this for his PhD).

Also, they suffer from one of the same problems as wind farms -- you need to get the location right. It's only worth doing where there's a high tidal range.

Still, hopefully the Swansea one will work out, maybe in a few years we'll be getting some power from the moon ....
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Location location location by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #72 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:55:02 AM EST
It'll be an interesting round of victimhood poker when the conservation lot end up against the green power lot...


[ Parent ]
Believe me, it's already started .... by gpig (2.00 / 0) #73 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:12:01 AM EST
Unfortunately there are cases where it's really hard to determine the science, even before you get to thinking about how you would decide.

Most of the conservation situations are sufficiently unique that the evidence on both sides for a given site is effectively guesswork (birds and wind farms are a good example).
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
I can imagine by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #74 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 12:09:33 PM EST
And I'd bet there's barely any case studies to extrapolate from.  Green nimbyism, hehe.


[ Parent ]
1.5 € ? by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:22:42 AM EST
I'll DOUBLE that!
I think I have the matching funds in me pocket.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

Ooops. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #17 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:04:23 AM EST
That should be 1.5 meeeellion €'s.


[ Parent ]
CMD Referenda blah blah blah by darkbrown (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:29:37 AM EST
Isn't it a bit dickish to say you'll have a referendum on unsigning something? I'm pretty sure most treaties don't have a clause that says if you cry like babies it's ok, don't worry about it, you can be exempt.

You get what you vote for. Cunts.

Or maybe by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #19 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:07:49 AM EST
CMD shouldn't have put his signature to a cast iron promise that could come back to bite him. 

And seeing as Lisbon is self amending, any further offer to a referendum would be me offering you a million quid for the first spoonful of fairy dust I find.

Unfortunately, I have never voted for any of the current "government" members, it's just everyone else being dicks.


[ Parent ]
Have you got what he actually said/wrote? by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:17:27 AM EST
Everyone refers to it, and no-one quotes it.

I meant you the electorate, not you personally.

We all submit to the will of the majority.

[ Parent ]
Yes. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:55:16 AM EST
CMD: We want to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but clearly it seems we are getting closer to the point where the treaty is not going to be a treaty but becomes part of European law


[ Parent ]
No by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:00:28 AM EST
Asked to repeat his “cast-iron” promise, he declined. Instead, he accepted that its ratification would mean that a vote in Britain was no longer possible.
“We want to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but clearly it seems we are getting closer to the point where the treaty is not going to be a treaty but becomes part of European law,” he said.

[ Parent ]
Yes. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:21:55 AM EST
So I wonder (once Vaclav Klaus has signed I think) what will be the official Tory line?


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:56 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Not very EU of you now is it? by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #38 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:32:29 AM EST
Surely the EU way is to carry on asking until you get the answer you wanted.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #39 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:17 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
LOL yes by dmg (4.00 / 1) #54 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:56:31 PM EST
How much more cash can the UK possibly contribute to this disaster-in-the-making? 




--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
a hung parliament. by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:45:05 AM EST
Need some rope?

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

Enough for 646 lamp posts by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #20 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:13:07 AM EST
And a couple of lengths to spare; some of the MPs might need double strength to hold their weight.


[ Parent ]
E_DIVIDEBYZERO by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #43 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:47:07 PM EST
Duh!

Good Sir, by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:23:07 PM EST
Are you implying I have nothing to say?


[ Parent ]
Nay! Good Sir! by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #47 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:01:59 PM EST
I am implying that what you have to say is impossible to convey.

[ Parent ]
Then! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #49 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:14:55 PM EST

O for the delicacy of prose of Shakspeare, the elegance of Fourier and the lightness of Montpelier!


[ Parent ]
So by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:15:18 PM EST
Are you against all EU party funding, or just when it's for the BNP?
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

No by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:34:50 AM EST
I'm against the EU.


[ Parent ]
The UK is totally fucked by dmg (4.00 / 1) #52 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:45:51 PM EST
And there is no fixing it. The only solution somewhat ironically, is emigration. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Where are we off to then? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 05:33:50 AM EST
Oz is a bit hot, NZ is a bit remote and Dubai is fucked.

So, where to?


[ Parent ]
I am intrigued by gpig (2.00 / 0) #59 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:32:31 AM EST
to know which country will be Breaker Approved (tm) ....
---
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
My name is Breaker by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #60 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:48:25 AM EST
And I approve this country!


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #62 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:55:07 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
I am tri-lingual by dmg (4.00 / 1) #68 Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:12:16 PM EST
So most European countries do not present an issue to me.
Switzerland would be one option although I doubt they can hold off against full EU  membership forever.
But realistically, its about the ability to pull down a living wage - and that is becoming more and more difficult wherever one happens to be geographically located.

NZ is very attractive as is Australia but they are a very long way from home.

I may just end up going back to Amsterdam - EU members or not, at least the Dutch understand what it means to be Liberal (in the true sense of the word).


--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
ORLY? by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #69 Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:33:51 AM EST
Fluent in French, basic conversational level in Cherman.


[ Parent ]
Free speech | 74 comments (74 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback