Thinker

I suppose the thing to do is imagine the remark was made about a politician you don't like. If it was would you still be outraged, or would you be rolling your eyes at those who were? Imho, comedy should be able to tread close to taboo areas, but there ought to be more to it than malice. I suppose that's the overly-polarised world we live in these days - folks can't just disagree with the other side of a political debate, they have to really fucking hate them. Brand's showboating in a not particularly witty way. I don't think it should be censored, but it's depressing to think she'd get much of a laugh for that.

Beautiful.

You're right. I do have a preconceived notion of what I want climate change studies to show. I desperately want them to prove that it's unelated to human activity and that there's no negative consequence to having a cosy house, regularly flying to sunny climes for my holidays, having steak twice a week, etc. Sadly, I'm unable to dismiss the strong evidence to the contrary. You can: that's fine. You are perfectly entitled to hold that view. I'm perfectly entitled to point out its shortcomings.

No, I questioned it because you hold a different view from 97% of people who've studied the matter much more closely than you have. Let's imagine you presented a newspaper article that showed 97% of economists think that Scotland would be less prosperous if it became independent. If I was to counter by saying that, in spite of that, I had decided, in my capacity as not-an-economist, to believe that Scotland would be more prosperous if independent, would you commend me for my open-mindedness? I think you might suspect that I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted to be true that was clouding my judgement.

You're being a tad melodramatic here. I'm not demanding you change your opinion or suggesting that you should be punished for your point of view. All I'm saying is that the train of thought you've followed to reach your conclusion on this matter isn't very scientific or rational. You are, of course, completely free to be as unscientific and irrational as you wish. In fact, you stand with the majority of the world's population if you do.

I think you've read something into the word "motive" that I didn't mean. Let's use a different word: rationale. What's your rationale for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist? I assume you wouldn't typically (as a matter of course in your daily life) adopt such a sceptical stance when presented with a strongly supported expert opinion. Why have you chosen to do so in this instance? Are you being a contrarion? A conspiracy theorist? Or is it that you find the implications unpleasant and scepticism more comfortable? Whatever it is, I suggest you're being irrational. I see r_s has provided an excellent illustration of what I'm driving at: He's admitting that his reluctance to accept the diagnosis is heavily coloured by his distaste for what is being widely touted as the remedy (and the people who are touting it). Forget the question of "What should we do about this?" Isolate and focus on "What's happening?" Ignore the activism, examine the science. Is human activity responsible for global warming? Beyond any reasonable doubt, scientific study of the matter tells us that: yes, it is. You don't have to do anything with that information, but that's how it is.

Nope. As I said, the evidence doesn't support climate change beyond all doubt. But what motive could you possibly have for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist - other than a desire for the unpleasant implications of what they're saying not to be true?

The evidence does support climate change beyond any reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, clearly - but then, you're under no obligation to be reasonable.

Do you have an open mind? It seems like you're pretty determined to ignore the balance of probabilities (and to do so from a position of limited expertise).

Yada yada yada indeed. If the point you're trying to make is that scientists occasionally get it wrong; well, yes they do - but rarely do ninety-odd % of them buy into the wrong theory at the same time. Obviously, it's entirely your prerogative to ignore the opinions of those most competent and qualified to assess the situation, but I'd suggest you'd have to have a deeply ingrained preconceived bias in order to do so. I mean, I wish the link between human activity and climate change was a hoax too but I'm not prepared (or able) to fly in the face of such strong scientific consensus in order to cling to that POV. Clearly climate change denial is the what's akin to being a flat earther here. (And, as I'm pretty sure you must be aware: The best religious minds in the world once burned scientists at the stake for having the temerity to claim the world was round.)

Well, that's true, but it's not really relevent to our current predicament - the heating and cooling you're speaking of happens over a timescale that's of no immediate concern to us. The strong scientific consensus is that the increase in global average temperature that is currently being precipitated by human activity will have a serious negative impact on human civilization in the next few generations. How we (or whether we can) tackle it is another issue.

Coincidentally, I just listened to a podcast chat with David Mitchell, and he brushed upon this point. If you're interested in listening it's about 21 minutes in (I think you have to sit through an ad first though, sorry). EP.89 - DAVID MITCHELL The interview was recorded a good while before the recent marches, but basically what he says is that the usefulness of a lot of messages (anti-smoking, climate change, whatever) is undermined by the holier-than-thou attitude of the people who feel the need to go on a crusade about them. The result is that the people who most need to be convinced and up getting pissed off and more entrenched.

Post-Brexit there's no way Scotland could join the EU whilst unofficially continuning to use Sterling (i.e. enter into an economic union with the Eurozone countries whilst using a currency controlled by a country outside both the EU and the ERM). There's no way at all that could fly. Keeping Sterling and joining the EU is an either/or choice - we couldn't do both; and clearly that's why the SNP have proposed a Scottish currency. Once the "Scottish Pound" is established, the negotiations to enter into the EU would undoubtedly include a strong recommendation that Scotland enters the ERM. From there (having a currency pegged to the Euro) it's a small step to full Eurozone entry. It may be a vote-loser (hence the word games) but it's pretty clear that's what's afoot.

Could a shared pound even be part of the ERM? Read the part in the Wikipedia entry for the Irish pound. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism#Replacement_with_the_euro_and_ERM_II It seems like Scotland would have to control its own currency to participate in the ERM. I can't see how the EU could agree to fix the exchange rate with Scotland if the UK are free to vary the Sterling/Euro rate.

The SFA should hire whoever negotiated the Danish Superliga's deal! That's incredible for a country of 5.7 million.