I have just seen the worst Lib Dem party political broadcast in history. Even Vince cable tried to act in it 
As shocking as the party.
As shocking as the party.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I have just seen the worst Lib Dem party political broadcast in history. Even Vince cable tried to act in it
As shocking as the party.
Truly toe-curling cringefest - Libs trying to be cool, and falling flat on their face
Climate change?.....from the Scottish news earlier this week....
Scotland's oldest snow patch expected to melt
By Steven McKenzieBBC Scotland Highlands and Islands reporter
- 18 September 2017
You must log in or register to see images
Media captionScotland's oldest snow patch set to melt away
Scotland's longest lasting patch of snow could melt away by the weekend.
Iain Cameron, who seeks out and records snow that survives on Scotland's highest mountains, believes the patch known as the Sphinx has days left.
The patch at Garbh Choire Mor on Braeriach in the Cairngorms is believed to have disappeared only six times previously in the last 300 years.
According to records, the snow previously melted in 1933, 1953, 1959, 1996, 2003 and 2006.
Dr Adam Watson, a biologist dubbed Mr Cairngorms because of his years studying the mountains, has written of the snow at Garbh Choire Mor.
His research of snow lying there for years drew on information handed down by generations of stalkers and families that had worked in that area.
In a post on Twitter following a visit to Garbh Choire Mor, Stirling-based Mr Cameron wrote: "Sphinx has a matter of days left. I'm displeased."
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightIAIN CAMERONImage captionA patch of snow clings on at Aonach Beag, but it is also expected to melt
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightDAN HOLLANDImage captionAonach Beag's patch pictured earlier this month
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightDAN HOLLANDImage captionAonach Beag's last snow could disappear within days
The Sphinx is one of only two patches of snow surviving in Scotland's hills this year.
The second patch at Aonach Beag is also expected to melt away over the next few days, said Mr Cameron, whose records of snow patches are published by the Royal Meteorological Society.
In August, Mr Cameron reported that for the first time in 11 years there was no snow on Britain's highest mountain, Ben Nevis.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightIAIN CAMERONImage captionSnow hunter Iain Cameron's tweet on the demise of the Sphinx snow patch
Garbh Choire Mor is described as Scotland's snowiest corrie because of the amount of snow it can hold even through summer months. Corries are a hollow-shaped geological features found high in Scotland's mountains.
UKClimbing.com describes Garbh Choire Mor as "remote" and having an "alpine feel".
It also warns that it is a place to avoid in winter because of cornices, large overhanging ledges of snow, that form above the corrie.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightADAM WATSON COLLECTIONImage captionDr Adam Watson, known as Mr Cairngorms, has researched the snow patch on Braeriach
The snow patch that has so far survived on Aonach Beag was skied on earlier this month by Helen Rennie, who has skied on natural Scottish snow every consecutive month for almost eight years.
September's visit to Aonach Beag for BBC Radio Scotland's Brainwaves programme was the Inverness-based skier's 95th month.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightDAN HOLLANDImage captionHelen Rennie skiing on Aonach Beag's patch of snow
According to records, the snow previously melted in 1933, 1953, 1959, 1996, 2003 and 2006.
who got the blame in 1933
who got the blame in 1933
Global mass extinction set to begin by 2100, study finds
The Independent
Planet Earth appears to be on course for the start of a sixth mass extinction of life by about 2100 because of the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, according to a mathematical study of the five previous events in the last 540 million years.
Professor Daniel Rothman, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lorenz Centre, theorised that disturbances in the natural cycle of carbon through the atmosphere, oceans, plant and animal life played a role in mass die-offs of animals and plants.
So he studied 31 times when there had been such changes and found four out of the five previous mass extinctions took place when the disruption crossed a “threshold of catastrophic change”.
The worst mass extinction of all – the so-called Great Dying some 248 million years ago when 96 per cent of species died out – breached one of these thresholds by the greatest margin.
Based on his analysis of these mass extinctions, Professor Rothman developed a mathematical formula to help predict how much extra carbon could be added to the oceans – which absorb vast amounts from the atmosphere – before triggering a sixth one.
The answer was alarming.
For the figure of 310 gigatons is just 10 gigatons above the figure expected to be emitted by 2100 under the best-case scenario forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The worst-case scenario would result in more than 500 gigatons.
Some scientists argue that the sixth mass extinction has already effectively begun. While the total number of species that have disappeared from the planet comes nowhere near the most apocalyptic events of the past, the rate of species loss is comparable.
Professor Rothman stressed that mass extinctions did not necessarily involve dramatic changes to the carbon cycle – as shown by the absence of this during the Late Devonian extinction more than 360 million years ago.
Writing in the journal Science Advances, he noted that events such as volcanic eruptions, climate change and other environmental factors could also play a role.
But he said changes to the carbon cycle – such as the burning of vast amounts of carbon in the form of oil, coal and gas laid down over millions of years – should also be considered.
“The history of the Earth system is a story of change. Some changes are gradual and benign, but others, especially those associated with catastrophic mass extinction, are relatively abrupt and destructive,” Professor Rothman wrote.
“What sets one group apart from the other? Here, I hypothesize that perturbations of Earth’s carbon cycle lead to mass extinction if they exceed either a critical rate at long time scales or a critical size at short time scales.
“By analyzing 31 carbon isotopic events during the past 542 million years, I identify the critical rate with a limit imposed by mass conservation.
“The modern critical size for the marine carbon cycle is roughly similar to the mass of carbon that human activities will likely have added to the oceans by the year 2100.”
The idea that mass extinctions are caused by major environmental changes was suggested about 200 years ago by the famed French naturalist Georges Cuvier.
If these changes are too rapid for the evolution of species, they may die out either as a result of being out-competed by those that can adapt or because they are unable to cope in the new environment.
Already some species of tree are in trouble because the temperature is rising so quickly that they cannot gradually “migrate” – by seeding saplings – uphill to cooler climates.
But scientists also recently described how the Atlantic killifish had evolved extremely quickly to be able to survive toxic pollution off the US east coast that would normally have killed them. They noted that “unfortunately” most species “we care about” were unlikely to be able to do the same.
Professor Rothman said that during his research into previous mass extinctions “it became evident that there was a characteristic rate of change that the system basically didn’t like to go past”.
He said it would probably take thousands of years for any ecological disaster to play out, but that 2100 could be the tipping point at which the world entered “unknown territory”.
“This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day,” Professor Rothman said.
“It’s saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict.
“In the geologic past, this type of behaviour is associated with mass extinction.”
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
The Independent
You must log in or register to see images
© Provided by Independent Print Limited imagePlanet Earth appears to be on course for the start of a sixth mass extinction of life by about 2100 because of the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, according to a mathematical study of the five previous events in the last 540 million years.
Professor Daniel Rothman, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lorenz Centre, theorised that disturbances in the natural cycle of carbon through the atmosphere, oceans, plant and animal life played a role in mass die-offs of animals and plants.
So he studied 31 times when there had been such changes and found four out of the five previous mass extinctions took place when the disruption crossed a “threshold of catastrophic change”.
The worst mass extinction of all – the so-called Great Dying some 248 million years ago when 96 per cent of species died out – breached one of these thresholds by the greatest margin.
Based on his analysis of these mass extinctions, Professor Rothman developed a mathematical formula to help predict how much extra carbon could be added to the oceans – which absorb vast amounts from the atmosphere – before triggering a sixth one.
The answer was alarming.
For the figure of 310 gigatons is just 10 gigatons above the figure expected to be emitted by 2100 under the best-case scenario forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The worst-case scenario would result in more than 500 gigatons.
Some scientists argue that the sixth mass extinction has already effectively begun. While the total number of species that have disappeared from the planet comes nowhere near the most apocalyptic events of the past, the rate of species loss is comparable.
Professor Rothman stressed that mass extinctions did not necessarily involve dramatic changes to the carbon cycle – as shown by the absence of this during the Late Devonian extinction more than 360 million years ago.
Writing in the journal Science Advances, he noted that events such as volcanic eruptions, climate change and other environmental factors could also play a role.
But he said changes to the carbon cycle – such as the burning of vast amounts of carbon in the form of oil, coal and gas laid down over millions of years – should also be considered.
“The history of the Earth system is a story of change. Some changes are gradual and benign, but others, especially those associated with catastrophic mass extinction, are relatively abrupt and destructive,” Professor Rothman wrote.
“What sets one group apart from the other? Here, I hypothesize that perturbations of Earth’s carbon cycle lead to mass extinction if they exceed either a critical rate at long time scales or a critical size at short time scales.
“By analyzing 31 carbon isotopic events during the past 542 million years, I identify the critical rate with a limit imposed by mass conservation.
“The modern critical size for the marine carbon cycle is roughly similar to the mass of carbon that human activities will likely have added to the oceans by the year 2100.”
The idea that mass extinctions are caused by major environmental changes was suggested about 200 years ago by the famed French naturalist Georges Cuvier.
If these changes are too rapid for the evolution of species, they may die out either as a result of being out-competed by those that can adapt or because they are unable to cope in the new environment.
Already some species of tree are in trouble because the temperature is rising so quickly that they cannot gradually “migrate” – by seeding saplings – uphill to cooler climates.
But scientists also recently described how the Atlantic killifish had evolved extremely quickly to be able to survive toxic pollution off the US east coast that would normally have killed them. They noted that “unfortunately” most species “we care about” were unlikely to be able to do the same.
Professor Rothman said that during his research into previous mass extinctions “it became evident that there was a characteristic rate of change that the system basically didn’t like to go past”.
He said it would probably take thousands of years for any ecological disaster to play out, but that 2100 could be the tipping point at which the world entered “unknown territory”.
“This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day,” Professor Rothman said.
“It’s saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict.
“In the geologic past, this type of behaviour is associated with mass extinction.”
One of my little FaceBook friends just posted this. It made me smile. See? 
I'm smiling!
/starts/
I’m so fed up with Netflix. I’m quitting! Just think of all the things I’ll be able to do with the money!
Now, I’ll grudgingly admit that there are a few benefits to Netflix.
For seven quid a month I get access to thousands of films and TV shows, including a lot of my favourites. “House of Cards”, “Jessica Jones” etc.
All for seven quid a month!
However, I have to pay that seven quid even if I don’t watch anything for a month! It’s never happened so far but it could! For instance, if I was hit by a tree.
And there are things on Netflix that I DON’T like at all.
“Logging in Eritrea”, a three hour documentary about logging in Eritrea, narrated by Kevin Bacon.
“Whittling in Patagonia”, a three hour documentary about whittling in Patagonia, narrated by Richard Bacon.
And the selection of shows I get is no better or worse than all the other Netflix subscribers, who might be horrid people with completely different tastes to me and who spend their whole time sat at home in darkness in their pants, watching “Carpentry in Reykjavik*”
Also, Netflix is very corporate. They’re actually a corporation! How much more corporate can you be than that?
So I’m going to cancel my subscription. It’s… Nexit!
Instead, I’m going to negotiate my OWN deals with every single film and TV company to receive a certain amount of their content in exchange for money.
It will be MY choice, negotiated by ME. I’m not paying for anyone else’s choices. No more “Cabinet Making in Bratislava” for me!
Now. There are a few downsides to this approach.
For instance, I’m going to be spending the next few years of my life doing little other than negotiating with film and TV companies. During which time I’ll get no income, my family will leave me, the house will fall down and I’ll die from malnutrition.
Also, it’s going to cost way, way more than seven quid. Seven quid won’t even get me a single deal with a single TV company.
And they’re unlikely to include their best stuff for the money I could afford to pay. I may have to settle for a selection of low budget, wood-based documentaries from obscure parts of the world.
But I’ll be free from the domination of Netflix. That’s the main thing.
I’m going to take my television back!
PS - the original Netflix/Brexit analogy wasn’t mine, I’m afraid I can’t remember where I first read it but will credit it if I see it again.
/ends/
I'm smiling!/starts/
I’m so fed up with Netflix. I’m quitting! Just think of all the things I’ll be able to do with the money!
Now, I’ll grudgingly admit that there are a few benefits to Netflix.
For seven quid a month I get access to thousands of films and TV shows, including a lot of my favourites. “House of Cards”, “Jessica Jones” etc.
All for seven quid a month!
However, I have to pay that seven quid even if I don’t watch anything for a month! It’s never happened so far but it could! For instance, if I was hit by a tree.
And there are things on Netflix that I DON’T like at all.
“Logging in Eritrea”, a three hour documentary about logging in Eritrea, narrated by Kevin Bacon.
“Whittling in Patagonia”, a three hour documentary about whittling in Patagonia, narrated by Richard Bacon.
And the selection of shows I get is no better or worse than all the other Netflix subscribers, who might be horrid people with completely different tastes to me and who spend their whole time sat at home in darkness in their pants, watching “Carpentry in Reykjavik*”
Also, Netflix is very corporate. They’re actually a corporation! How much more corporate can you be than that?
So I’m going to cancel my subscription. It’s… Nexit!
Instead, I’m going to negotiate my OWN deals with every single film and TV company to receive a certain amount of their content in exchange for money.
It will be MY choice, negotiated by ME. I’m not paying for anyone else’s choices. No more “Cabinet Making in Bratislava” for me!
Now. There are a few downsides to this approach.
For instance, I’m going to be spending the next few years of my life doing little other than negotiating with film and TV companies. During which time I’ll get no income, my family will leave me, the house will fall down and I’ll die from malnutrition.
Also, it’s going to cost way, way more than seven quid. Seven quid won’t even get me a single deal with a single TV company.
And they’re unlikely to include their best stuff for the money I could afford to pay. I may have to settle for a selection of low budget, wood-based documentaries from obscure parts of the world.
But I’ll be free from the domination of Netflix. That’s the main thing.
I’m going to take my television back!
PS - the original Netflix/Brexit analogy wasn’t mine, I’m afraid I can’t remember where I first read it but will credit it if I see it again.
/ends/
One of my little FaceBook friends just posted this. It made me smile. See?
/starts/
I’m so fed up with Netflix. I’m quitting! Just think of all the things I’ll be able to do with the money!
Now, I’ll grudgingly admit that there are a few benefits to Netflix.
For seven quid a month I get access to thousands of films and TV shows, including a lot of my favourites. “House of Cards”, “Jessica Jones” etc.
All for seven quid a month!
However, I have to pay that seven quid even if I don’t watch anything for a month! It’s never happened so far but it could! For instance, if I was hit by a tree.
And there are things on Netflix that I DON’T like at all.
“Logging in Eritrea”, a three hour documentary about logging in Eritrea, narrated by Kevin Bacon.
“Whittling in Patagonia”, a three hour documentary about whittling in Patagonia, narrated by Richard Bacon.
And the selection of shows I get is no better or worse than all the other Netflix subscribers, who might be horrid people with completely different tastes to me and who spend their whole time sat at home in darkness in their pants, watching “Carpentry in Reykjavik*”
Also, Netflix is very corporate. They’re actually a corporation! How much more corporate can you be than that?
So I’m going to cancel my subscription. It’s… Nexit!
Instead, I’m going to negotiate my OWN deals with every single film and TV company to receive a certain amount of their content in exchange for money.
It will be MY choice, negotiated by ME. I’m not paying for anyone else’s choices. No more “Cabinet Making in Bratislava” for me!
Now. There are a few downsides to this approach.
For instance, I’m going to be spending the next few years of my life doing little other than negotiating with film and TV companies. During which time I’ll get no income, my family will leave me, the house will fall down and I’ll die from malnutrition.
Also, it’s going to cost way, way more than seven quid. Seven quid won’t even get me a single deal with a single TV company.
And they’re unlikely to include their best stuff for the money I could afford to pay. I may have to settle for a selection of low budget, wood-based documentaries from obscure parts of the world.
But I’ll be free from the domination of Netflix. That’s the main thing.
I’m going to take my television back!
PS - the original Netflix/Brexit analogy wasn’t mine, I’m afraid I can’t remember where I first read it but will credit it if I see it again.
/ends/
I changed my signature a couple of weeks ago, Dipper.
I changed my signature a couple of weeks ago, Dipper.
So you have! Ahead of the curve again, Strolls. I never look at those, mind...
Well they own a hell lot of it so I expect they can call it France
They also certainly power it along with most of the south east
Lucky our water is owned by the Aussies
A "safe zone" isn't intended to be a permanent solution. It's a temporary fix until the refugees can return to their home country and get international help with rebuilding.
The UK has spent its overseas aid on some pretty batty projects in the past. This project, helping Jordan, would be well spent imo.
Saudi Arabia are neighbours, they are Muslims and part of the Arab League. If Sweden had a diaspora, we would be expected to help, not send refugees to Saudi Arabia, so the opposite applies.
Last edited:
If the French want to lay claim to London, they'll have to share it with the Arabs and the Russians. All the Brits have moved out to Tunbridge Wells because they're not multi-lingual, though their kids have mastered Australian, or at least...the upward inflection?
The snow didn’t melt it just decided to move to Austria after the Brexit vote.
Not just Tunbridge Wells I challenge that you could look at any UK town and you will find a disfunctional people who struggle with English as their mother tongue ... if you know what i mean? Out of control comsumerism with a average debt of god only knows all racing to compete against the Jones who i think originate from Cardiff or Swansea but have the advantage of a second language and a wonderful culture ... Hot dogs for tea boys
Said for a long time London is in fact now a separate multi cultural principality within the UK
Agree with you on both points. Individual debt is a big worry - interest rates go up a point or two and there's going to be pain for citizens and may be the banks again, like 2008. And London is like a separate principality - would Tunbridge Wells have voted for a Muslim mayor? (Perhaps I'm being hard on them). London is the capital of the world. There's nowhere like it, no, not even New York. But London can never break free from the shires, because it was the shires that created London. All the multi-cultural stuff came later.
The Italians created London and the most popular name in London and the South East last year was Mohamed.
Last edited:
Well, yes, I wasn't going back quite that far, but the Romans did found it. I was thinking more of the founder of an independent Parliament, Oliver Cromwell, and all that had been built on his work at Westminster since.
As to the name, may be they were called after the famous boxer
Well, yes, I wasn't going back quite that far, but the Romans did found it. I was thinking more of the founder of an independent Parliament, Oliver Cromwell, and all that had been built on his work at Westminster since.
As to the name, may be they were called after the famous boxer
We are a mongrel nation. The problem we have is that immigrants here are made to feel so unwelcome that it is very difficult for them to adopt 'Britishness'. In the US you hear people describe themselves as 'Polish-American' or 'Asian-American'. Here they remain Polish or Asian.