Of course, these are scores based against a party actually following through and delivering on its ideals, instead of launching a blitz on civil liberties and going to war a lot.
Curiosity wrote:
instead of launching a blitz on civil liberties and going to war a lot.
Which is pretty much why I'll never vote Labour.
(or any party that's been in power for 2 terms unless they've been doing a flawless effort)
Curiosity wrote:
Of course, these are scores based against a party actually following through and delivering on its ideals, instead of launching a blitz on civil liberties and going to war a lot.
Not to mention lying/misleading about it on a grotesque scale, causing a mass exodus of good manufacturing industry/jobs from UK, completely reorganising then woefully failing to regulate the City of London (precipitating the worst economic damage and crisis for 60 years), making a total arse of immigration policy and the economy such that even they had to apologise, yet failing to apologise for the mess they left in so many other areas, be it multi-billion botched public projects and contracts, PFI, Defence, IT, abortive ID cards, lousy health and education records with rife falling standards/grade inflation, failure to build houses, failure to manage housing and credit boom, burgeoning public sector costs, long term unemployment, scandalous youth unemployment, disastrous University/funding policies, complete failure to prepare for even an economic downturn (let alone a Depression), never having even once returned a Budget in surplus, not even during 10 years of (Tory-induced) prosperity. Oh, and near constant divisive squabbling, briefing against each other even at the highest level, and so-called 'sofa government'. And selling all the gold at the bottom of the market, pensions raided, public sector final salary pensions completely funked (leaving this, and just about everything else to the Coalition to resolve), gulf between rich and poor never more pronounced.
Apart from that, superb.
Lulz. Love some of the comments too...
Quote:
If I die and my life flashes before my eyes, and I start screaming, its because that creepy fuck just pooped up.
Quote:
never having even once returned a Budget in surplus, not even during 10 years of (Tory-induced) prosperity.
*waves*
1998: Budget surplus of 0.7bn
1999: Budget surplus of 12bn
2000: Budget surplus of 16.5bn
2001: Budget surplus of 8bn
Now you can certainly say that they were partly the beneficiaries of Ken Clarke's rather Keynesian approach to managing the economy post-Black Wednesday. And you'd be right! But the fact remains that they returned more surplus years and more total than a certain Iron Lady.
(relurks
) Peter St. John wrote:
Quote:
never having even once returned a Budget in surplus, not even during 10 years of (Tory-induced) prosperity.
*waves*
1998: Budget surplus of 0.7bn
1999: Budget surplus of 12bn
2000: Budget surplus of 16.5bn
2001: Budget surplus of 8bn
Now you can certainly say that they were partly the beneficiaries of Ken Clarke's rather Keynesian approach to managing the economy post-Black Wednesday. And you'd be right! But the fact remains that they returned more surplus years and more total than a certain Iron Lady.
(relurks
)Hey, don't relurk chap!
(Someone needs to be talking sense around here, let's face it, it's never going to be me... )Must admit, I've heard it trumpeted so many times by senior politicians that Labour never returned a single surplus Budget (and this was never even challenged), so I simply assumed it was the case! I stand corrected, however. I'll believe you every time over them.
Cavey
Data is from here, btw: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data (via ONS)
It does seem to have fallen down a memory hole, probably because the financial crash was so hard, but also because it's tempting to view the Labour 97-01 Government as something completely separate from the 01-10 Government. If you look at the difference - between 97/01 you get civil liberties expansions concerning the FOIA, Human Rights Act, equalizing age of consent, the minimum wage, et al, and then in 2001 something snaps in Blair's mind and we get all that followed. It's a little too simplistic, as it belies the reliance on PFI, the desperate need of Labour to cozy up with big business, Pathfinder, and all that fun that was there since May 1997, but it is odd how most of the 'good' things of New Labour happened in their first term...
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied)
It does seem to have fallen down a memory hole, probably because the financial crash was so hard, but also because it's tempting to view the Labour 97-01 Government as something completely separate from the 01-10 Government. If you look at the difference - between 97/01 you get civil liberties expansions concerning the FOIA, Human Rights Act, equalizing age of consent, the minimum wage, et al, and then in 2001 something snaps in Blair's mind and we get all that followed. It's a little too simplistic, as it belies the reliance on PFI, the desperate need of Labour to cozy up with big business, Pathfinder, and all that fun that was there since May 1997, but it is odd how most of the 'good' things of New Labour happened in their first term...
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied
) Peter St. John wrote:
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied )
)I'd rather be doing that than what I'm doing.
Peter St. John wrote:
Data is from here, btw: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... owing-data (via ONS)
It does seem to have fallen down a memory hole, probably because the financial crash was so hard, but also because it's tempting to view the Labour 97-01 Government as something completely separate from the 01-10 Government. If you look at the difference - between 97/01 you get civil liberties expansions concerning the FOIA, Human Rights Act, equalizing age of consent, the minimum wage, et al, and then in 2001 something snaps in Blair's mind and we get all that followed. It's a little too simplistic, as it belies the reliance on PFI, the desperate need of Labour to cozy up with big business, Pathfinder, and all that fun that was there since May 1997, but it is odd how most of the 'good' things of New Labour happened in their first term...
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied)
It does seem to have fallen down a memory hole, probably because the financial crash was so hard, but also because it's tempting to view the Labour 97-01 Government as something completely separate from the 01-10 Government. If you look at the difference - between 97/01 you get civil liberties expansions concerning the FOIA, Human Rights Act, equalizing age of consent, the minimum wage, et al, and then in 2001 something snaps in Blair's mind and we get all that followed. It's a little too simplistic, as it belies the reliance on PFI, the desperate need of Labour to cozy up with big business, Pathfinder, and all that fun that was there since May 1997, but it is odd how most of the 'good' things of New Labour happened in their first term...
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied
)Fundamentally, Labour were very much "on probation" during their first term - people (rightly) did not trust their economic competence following previous disastrous administrations. This is why they adopted the Conservative Party's spending limits for this entire term (i.e. they emulated the Tories to a very great extent), and it's where Brown got his "Iron Chancellor" and "Prudence" nicknames - because he was essentially a Tory Chancellor by proxy!
From their second term on, though, we basically got REAL Labour - prudence was well and truly out of the window and the buggers let rip big time, believing their own publicity (not to mention "no more boom and bust"). The rest, as they say, is history...
DavPaz wrote:
Peter St. John wrote:
(sadly, I'm out laying gravel and trying to fix an air conditioner in the American South today, so I will be a little occupied )
)I'd rather be doing that than what I'm doing.
Reading this thread?
Fascinating; got it absolutely right for me. Virtually nothing to choose between Conservative and LibDem, almost identical scores and both a "weak match". Labour a long way behind in 3rd place, then UKIP and the Greens last.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Fascinating; got it absolutely right for me. Virtually nothing to choose between Conservative and LibDem, almost identical scores and both a "weak match". Labour a long way behind in 3rd place, then UKIP and the Greens last.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
Welcome aboard, brother!
We're all doooooomed!
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Fascinating; got it absolutely right for me. Virtually nothing to choose between Conservative and LibDem, almost identical scores and both a "weak match". Labour a long way behind in 3rd place, then UKIP and the Greens last.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
Would seem it is official. I am Cavey.
Worst Scooby Do, ever.
Here we go!
That's me on the left.
That's me on the left.
Quote:
Croydon is unsafe and a dump
Way to win over voters there.
Way to win over voters there.
I was there a few weeks back and they had them out in force handing out leaflets up by Allders, no demonstrators or any trouble at all, though no one really took any notice all.
On a side note, if that steel band is the same one I saw while down there they were awesome, it sounded like they were playing Prodigy's Out Of Space (or Max Romeos original) on the steel drums.
Kern wrote:
I was the second person in!
Nicely done, chap.
We've just cast our votes as well, though I worry that the weather is so bad that many people will stay away, leaving a disproportionate number of swivel-eyed Kipper voter/nationalist types who'd vote even if it was hailing meteorites.
At least the weather will give the parties a good scapegoat for the low turnout, so they don't have to think about any reform till the next time.
Trooper wrote:
At least the weather will give the parties a good scapegoat for the low turnout, so they don't have to think about any reform till the next time.
True!
I still don't know who to vote for. It's down to a choice of two..
Vote Governor Marley.
Pod wrote:
I still don't know who to vote for. It's down to a choice of two..
Harvey Dent?
I feel sorry for my girlfriend today, being reg'd to vote over here she only has the option to vote for British parties she can't stand rather than the saner German ones. Even the UK party which is directly related to the German party she is a member of is too right-wing for her tastes, let alone the others.
"Axe postal votes"Say Galloway before launching defamation action.
The current apocalyptic weather may well deter some from voting.
Mr Dave wrote:
The current apocalyptic weather may well deter some from voting.
Don't be so nesh. It's normal for up here. I didn't see a single schoolgirl with a coat on this morning.
MaliA wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
The current apocalyptic weather may well deter some from voting.
Don't be so nesh. It's normal for up here. I didn't see a single schoolgirl with a coat on this morning.
What happens if I want to be 'nesh'
But aeriously, the building was shaking. That's not normal weather.
That's just the fracking because those renewables don't make trillion pounds worth of money for multimillionaire investors.
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
Cavey wrote:
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
I don't think anyone loves it; the whole thing is a fucking catastrophe for humanity.
But the amount being made, whilst plenty for some people to make millions, is still just pennies compared to the money made by the 'other side'.
No it's all a conspiracy by the scientific community to get grants. Who needs them anyway with their evidence and facts? We can model the climate using good old fashioned common sense. The planet has always changed temperature you see, blah de fucking blah etc.
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason
I don't think anyone loves it; the whole thing is a fucking catastrophe for humanity.
But the amount being made, whilst plenty for some people to make millions, is still just pennies compared to the money made by the 'other side'.
I didn't want to stray unduly into the area of man-made climate change; we've all done it to death already and this thread is supposed to be about politics, and specifically, political debate. However, I see that discussion has moved elsewhere
, so hey ho...Briefly, where is this "fucking catastrophe for humanity" now, exactly? I'm not talking about stuff like China choking on fumes produced by its myriad of coal-burning power stations and suchlike. That is simply pollution, a very well understood principle (see 1950s London smog etc.), nor indeed climate change per se (which has always occurred since the Earth's climate is dynamic and complex without any intervention from us), but actual, irrefutable and catastrophic, man made climate change? Seems to me all we actually have is a bunch of models and predictions which inarguably have not, and do not, even remotely fit with actual, empirical data - the planet has not even warmed at all since 2001, yet I clearly remember being told I'd be up to my knees in polar ice meltwater by now.
Climate change per se is indeed occurring, to a degree. It has always occurred, it will continue to occur, and no-one - least of all me - has ever denied this basic fact of life. But it certainly is not occurring even remotely in accordance with predictions (so confidently and arrogantly asserted), does not (at the moment) constitute a "fucking catastrophe for humanity", and as for it definitely and absolutely being attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Any fair-minded, reasonable person would concede that, in the face of our complete and demonstrable failure to model/predict what is actually happening, this assertion is at the very least highly debatable/unknown at present. (Don't even get me started on the laughable, derisory record of the Met Office to predict even the next weather season, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years hence).
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees? Did people argue against the cessation of CFC use (despite this being a nightmare 'commercially', with these things ubiquitous as refrigerants, propellants in aerosols etc.), when the scientific community produced clear, concise, demonstrable science showing the depletion of the ozone layer? No they did not; the use of these chemicals was stopped almost overnight, at great cost (entirely passed onto consumers), and yet everyone applauded.
In my profession, I have to produce detailed, 3D environmental models, as based on very expensive, proprietary modelling software that took many, many years to develop, but is ultimately based on a series of sound, absolute, irrefutable and demonstrable scientific laws. Let's suppose someone commissioned me to do this, the project was built - and the predictions of my model turned out to be not even remotely correct? Apart from being sued, do you think anyone would take me seriously? Could I thump my fist on the table and accuse my detractors as being "deniers"; that I had used the "best science", even in the face of a total failure on my part to even remotely predict the required parameters? Of course not. And yet, in my case, the total liability might even be a few million quid - but the liability in the case of man-made climate change would run into trillions. Ultimately, for me at least, this is about credibility, or demonstable lack thereof. As I said the other day to a bunch of baying science-types on another board, come back to me when you've actually validated your model(s), yeah?
One final point, I think you seriously underestimate the amount of money involved, one way or another, in the whole man-made climate change business, carbon credits, subsidies, expensively engineered cars and all the rest - all of which we, ordinary people and consumers (most visibly in spiraling, crippling energy costs) have to pay for.
markg wrote:
No it's all a conspiracy by the scientific community to get grants. Who needs them anyway with their evidence and facts? We can model the climate using good old fashioned common sense. The planet has always changed temperature you see, blah de fucking blah etc.
Yeah, I think you'll find it's those "evidence and facts" that are sorely lacking matey.
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?
No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?
No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
I must confess, I had to look that up.
According to Wiki:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort[1] experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.
This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.[2] For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if they are addicted to smoking cigarettes and continue to smoke despite knowing how seriously it jeopardizes health.[3] Stress and discomfort increase in proportion to the importance of the beliefs, ideas or values that are contradicted.
It's true to the extent that whole issue of man-made climate change leaves me uncomfortable, for I neither entirely believe, nor disbelieve it - like many others, I am desperate for the 'hammer blow' evidence (even an empirically validated, demonstrably valid model), one way or another?
But it definitely isn't the case, say, as per the cigarettes example (an example only too close to my heart
), that I fully believe in the hypothesis, or not, and cause distress to myself by wilfully and/or perversely doing (or purporting to believe) the exact opposite. That would be absurd; almost cultish. I'm guilty of many things, but not that. How much do you think it bothers me personally to lose an argument or lose face? It happens all the time! 97.1% of scientists studying this agree on man made climate change. Over 98% if you count them a slightly more accurate way.
Cavey, no offence, but this genuinely isn't a debate. If you want a brief précis then see the John Oliver video on it.
There's evidence basically everywhere. If you want a more detailed version, ask the experts; they unanimously agree on it.
I don't mean to be rude, but your argument boils down to this:
"I am arguing from a position of ignorance compared to people who dedicate their lives to studying this, but I know more than every single one of these people, despite their thousands of doctorates and overwhelming scientific proof."
Cavey, no offence, but this genuinely isn't a debate. If you want a brief précis then see the John Oliver video on it.
There's evidence basically everywhere. If you want a more detailed version, ask the experts; they unanimously agree on it.
I don't mean to be rude, but your argument boils down to this:
"I am arguing from a position of ignorance compared to people who dedicate their lives to studying this, but I know more than every single one of these people, despite their thousands of doctorates and overwhelming scientific proof."
Curiosity wrote:
"I am arguing from a position of ignorance compared to people who dedicate their lives to studying this, but I know more than every single one of these people, despite their thousands of doctorates and overwhelming scientific proof."
Sorry mate, but it absolutely is not that.
You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality? I don't need to be an expert; anyone can legitimately question the basic veracity of a hypothesis based on such a clear disconnect with empirical data. I don't pretend to know WHY, but I absolutely do not need to.
Going back to my earlier 3D acoustics model example, if I was sat round a table with my clients, who wanted to know why it was completely wrong in all key respects (i.e. its predictions were totally at odds with actual measured data, after the fact), how much ice would it cut if I were to say "...this isn't a debate! I don't care that none of my predictions have proved correct [thus far], wtf do any of you's know about acoustics? I'm TEH EXPERT, you plebs!"....?
In that example, apart from anything else, my clients would be picking up the tab and would be totally justified in questioning my true knowledge and capabilities, with or without specialist knowledge of their own. In the final analysis, either something works, or it doesn't; a theory is proved, or it is not? Empirical proof is everything, especially to engineers. It's our job, sorry. If something is not proved, have the humility and conscience to swallow your professional pride and go back to the drawing board guys; don't try to browbeat those few who are prepared to at least question why predictions clearly don't match with reality.
I should point out of course that the immense "tab" arising from the man-made climate change theory - not simply the cost of research, but of (patchy) policy implementation - IS being picked up by all of us, disproportionately so in Europe. Very much so, often by people who can least afford it.
Cavey wrote:
But it definitely isn't the case, say, as per the cigarettes example (an example only too close to my heart ), that I fully believe in the hypothesis, or not, and cause distress to myself by wilfully and/or perversely doing (or purporting to believe) the exact opposite. That would be absurd; almost cultish. I'm guilty of many things, but not that. How much do you think it bothers me personally to lose an argument or lose face? It happens all the time!
), that I fully believe in the hypothesis, or not, and cause distress to myself by wilfully and/or perversely doing (or purporting to believe) the exact opposite. That would be absurd; almost cultish. I'm guilty of many things, but not that. How much do you think it bothers me personally to lose an argument or lose face? It happens all the time!People did just that for a long time though, they would resolve it by clinging to any shred of contradictory evidence, it sounds like a cliche now but it genuinely wasn't uncommon to hear things like "my grandad smoked 20 a day and lived till he was 85".
I think the point is that sometimes this cognitive dissonance can cause us to give undue credence to any evidence which doesn't cause us to have to alter our views. It also strikes me that some of the wider implications of what is going to be required to have any meaningful impact on climate change do not sit well with traditional conservative values which may compound this effect for those with right wing views.
I've also read things which indicate that it isn't related to scientific literacy or anything like that and indeed those faculties can simply enable people to better construct an alternative viewpoint which they find believable. You see scientists who probably consider themselves rational do this sometimes. Becoming a lone voice clinging to their theory for what observers might consider a quite unreasonable length of time after the contradictory evidence has emerged, desperately criticising the methodology and credibility of their opponents.
Again, 97%-98% of scientific papers all agree on man mad climate change.
This isn't just models. This is measuring results from the past and present and seeing actual, real, live correlations. They are seeing exactly what models predict in many ways.
I'm on holiday and about to go out, but list the exact ways you disagree with the published papers (I assume you've read them if you disagree with all the research) and I'll try to refute you
This isn't just models. This is measuring results from the past and present and seeing actual, real, live correlations. They are seeing exactly what models predict in many ways.
I'm on holiday and about to go out, but list the exact ways you disagree with the published papers (I assume you've read them if you disagree with all the research) and I'll try to refute you
I'm also not sure where the 'all the models are always wrong' nonsense is coming from, as they aren't.
Oi, holiday.
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?
No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
I posted this in the bits and bobs thread the other day:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... n=20140519
Choice quote:
Quote:
If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong.
and a bunch of other stuff to do with the identity of self. Well, if someone strongly identifies themselves with a particular political group, and that political group says "climate change is wrong", you're basically never going to get that person to change their opinion unless you "can appeal to their sense of self" (whatever that means) and do so without them feeling threatened, or something. Which unfortunately means that if a person has a giant persecution complex, they'll never change.
Cavey wrote:
You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality?
The models built in the '80s by a relatively small group of scientists turned out to be alarmist. The models built in the '00s by almost every human being working in environmental science today have all so far been accurate. You are using the results of the first to dispute the second but these are not the same things. Pod wrote:
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?
No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
I posted this in the bits and bobs thread the other day:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... n=20140519
Choice quote:
Quote:
If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong.
and a bunch of other stuff to do with the identity of self. Well, if someone strongly identifies themselves with a particular political group, and that political group says "climate change is wrong", you're basically never going to get that person to change their opinion unless you "can appeal to their sense of self" (whatever that means) and do so without them feeling threatened, or something. Which unfortunately means that if a person has a giant persecution complex, they'll never change.
And yet amusingly enough though Pod, it's actually you, not I, who clearly has an axe to grind (and for that matter, as far as I can make out, totally intransigent political beliefs in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary).
At the end of the day, patronising ad hominem isn't an argument for anything and, for the record, I couldn't give two hoots if you think my political (or any other) beliefs are so entrenched/embedded that I can't even bring myself to consider any alternative world-view, have a "giant persecution complex", or whatever. To someone like me who is actually always perfectly willing to consider, and empathise with the other side of an argument (indeed, why else would I be here), and freely admit when I'm wrong (which is often), it all just comes across as ridiculous, needlessly personal and ultimately, a bit pathetic I'm afraid.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality?
The models built in the '80s by a relatively small group of scientists turned out to be alarmist. The models built in the '00s by almost every human being working in environmental science today have all so far been accurate. You are using the results of the first to dispute the second but these are not the same things.Genuine question: Have you got any 'Idiots Guide' links to stuff specifically about the latest model efficacies please Doc?
Cavey
We all know its the implementation of gay marriage in the UK that caused floods, not global warming