Also in the news

[David Guiza]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Which means he can't share that information publicly, not even his (extended) family or friends, correct? Then again, I also wonder what this will mean from a schooling perspective - I mean, she still needs to complete her regular education, and her change will be visible to her classmates and the school environment the longer it goes on, so you can't keep it a secret at all.

Will the school, her classmates or all pupils have to sign an NDA, too? See where this is going?

 

The doctor in charge of the BC program as well as the corresponding children's hospital have also come under scrutiny:

 

It has also been alleged by the father/her family that the girl has been "indoctrinated" by the school's environment to proceed with the transition as early as a 12-year old.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/doctors-insist-canadian-14-year-old-needs-no-parent-consent-trans-hormone-injections/

 

I just think as long as the girl is not legally able to decide for herself what's best for her, then the parents ought to retain that right, as per usual. It could set a dangerous precedent, in which authorities take over by law under some of the most ridiculous of reasonings. I find that somewhat worrying.

The order was sought to protect a vulnerable young child from the risk of suicide. The intention of the order is clearly to prevent the father from speaking to the press (again) and not really to do with family or friends. Laws like that exist in the vast majority of western countries to protect vulnerable victims in one degree or another. It seems that that father has spoken to numerous Conservative news outlets and activist groups and even shared provided personal information in detail to them. 

 

To be quite honest I don't understand why the father felt the need to go so public at this stage, to the extent that he wants Fox News and Breibart (just look at the comment section on this article for an example of the lovely readers https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/15/pete-buttigieg-women-should-have-access-to-safe-and-legal-abortion/) to cover the story. I understand that he disagrees with the original decision and sees the media as a voice for his argument, but experts have seemingly said that there is a 'dangerous risk' to the child should he continue with his personal tirade and even cited suicide. You admit yourself that the child has psychological issues, do you honestly think Fox News and the like will be looking to protect the best interests of the vulnerable child when reporting on the case? Just imagine being the child in this situation.  

[MC Prussian]

@leicsmac: Here's some food for thought regarding the climate change debate. It's based on the US experience.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

 

Wonderfully in-depth and worth the read - check out the ICCC videos. Highly educational.

 

Interesting points include the variation of temperature increase, the means of measurement, time and date of measurement, and the locations of measurement stations in the US.

Also the quotation of dubious source material, bias and manipulation of facts, manufacturing consent, political motivation behind the debate, as well as a critique on the concept of decarbonization.

 

Whilst we can agree that it has gotten warmer overall, the average temperature has increased only slightly (+/- about one degree in the space of a century) and average temperatures in the past 20 years or so indicate that we might well be on the road to another cool down period, despite more carbon dioxide in the air.

 

What's also little talked about is the fact that yes, we do see more damage done by hurricanes and other natural catastrophes in recent years and decades - but mainly because there are more people and more stuff (buildings, cars, etc.) on this planet to destroy in the first place. 

Quote

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Edited 16 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

The order was sought to protect a vulnerable young child from the risk of suicide. The intention of the order is clearly to prevent the father from speaking to the press (again) and not really to do with family or friends. Laws like that exist in the vast majority of western countries to protect vulnerable victims in one degree or another. It seems that that father has spoken to numerous Conservative news outlets and activist groups and even shared provided personal information in detail to them. 

 

To be quite honest I don't understand why the father felt the need to go so public at this stage, to the extent that he wants Fox News and Breibart (just look at the comment section on this article for an example of the lovely readers https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/15/pete-buttigieg-women-should-have-access-to-safe-and-legal-abortion/) to cover the story. I understand that he disagrees with the original decision and sees the media as a voice for his argument, but experts have seemingly said that there is a 'dangerous risk' to the child should he continue with his personal tirade and even cited suicide. You admit yourself that the child has psychological issues, do you honestly think Fox News and the like will be looking to protect the best interests of the vulnerable child when reporting on the case? Just imagine being the child in this situation.  

Speaking totally cynically here, the man needs to create a media narrative so that if/when, gods forbid, this poor child does harm herself in some way because of what he's done and the typical public pitchforking, he'll have a mouthpiece and support to say that it wasn't his fault.

Edited 16 May 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

13 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

The order was sought to protect a vulnerable young child from the risk of suicide. The intention of the order is clearly to prevent the father from speaking to the press (again) and not really to do with family or friends. Laws like that exist in the vast majority of western countries to protect vulnerable victims in one degree or another. It seems that that father has spoken to numerous Conservative news outlets and activist groups and even shared provided personal information in detail to them. 

 

To be quite honest I don't understand why the father felt the need to go so public at this stage, to the extent that he wants Fox News and Breibart (just look at the comment section on this article for an example of the lovely readers https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/15/pete-buttigieg-women-should-have-access-to-safe-and-legal-abortion/) to cover the story. I understand that he disagrees with the original decision and sees the media as a voice for his argument, but experts have seemingly said that there is a 'dangerous risk' to the child should he continue with his personal tirade and even cited suicide. You admit yourself that the child has psychological issues, do you honestly think Fox News and the like will be looking to protect the best interests of the vulnerable child when reporting on the case? Just imagine being the child in this situation.  

Whilst I think going public may be wrong to some extent, if the father who has an agreement with his wife whom he has separated from that they'd both be taking care of the child until it has reached legal maturity, I can imagine that he's gotten to a point of sheer frustration, with his voice not being heard from a subjective point of view.

 

Btw, I didn't imply or admit that the girl in this case in particular does have psychological issues, because you cannot deduct this from the current coverage. I was merely talking about feedback from experts looking at other, similar cases with kids before they become adults as defined by the law.

 

I would then say that the discussion needs to be had, and that you can't sweep the physical and mental issues or concerns under the carpet. This needs to go public. I can see there's a bit of an industry forming, providing more and more gender-altering "services" to children, individuals who aren't fully grown or grown-up yet, overtaking the parents' natural responsibilities, replacing them by the state.

 

Let's not overblow the situation, either - as stated in another post a while ago, transgender issues on average affect roughly 0.3% of the general population, so this still is a very niche/fringe issue.

Edited 16 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[David Guiza]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Whilst I think going public may be wrong to some extent, if the father who has an agreement with his wife whom he has separated from that they'd both be taking care of the child until it has reached legal maturity, I can imagine that he's gotten to a point of sheer frustration, with his voice not being heard from a subjective point of view.

 

Btw, I didn't imply or admit that the girl in this case in particular does have psychological issues, because you cannot deduct this from the current coverage. I was merely talking about feedback from experts looking at other, similar cases with kids before they become adults as defined by the law.

 

I would then say that the discussion needs to be had, and that you can't sweep the physical and mental issues under the carpet. This needs to go public to some extent.

 

Let's not overblow the situation, either - as stated in another post a while ago, transgender issues on average affect roughly 0.3% of the general population, so this still is a very niche/fringe issue.

I agree that the father is looking for support for his cause as he perceives that he's fighting a losing battle, but Fox News and co are not the answer to that and will almost certainly cause more damage than good; that's what the courts are seeking to prevent. UK Law would almost certainly take the same view - it's similar to perverting the course of justice in many respects.  

 

The mental and physical issues are an interest for trained professionals, not the badger baiting press. That goes for both sides of the media coin. You have to be incredibly careful with using a vulnerable 14 year old child as a 'show trial' if you are to avoid having blood on your hands in some shape or form. 

 

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Speaking totally cynically here, the man needs to create a media narrative so that if/when, gods forbid, this poor child does harm herself in some way because of what he's done and the typical public pitchforking, he'll have a mouthpiece and support to say that it wasn't his fault.

Oh absolutely. Speaking cynically again, I suspect that there is a certain embarrassment, for want of a better word, for a Conservative supporting, Fox News watching, man to raise a transgender daughter among his peers and social groups and I wouldn't be surprised if that comes in to it. It's perhaps the equivalent of me finding out that a future daughter of mine is engaged to a fox hunting, UKIP voting, Forest fan.  

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

@leicsmac: Here's some food for thought regarding the climate change debate. It's based on the US experience.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

 

Wonderfully in-depth and worth the read - check out the ICCC videos. Highly educational.

 

Interesting points include the variation of temperature increase, the means of measurement, time and date of measurement, and the locations of measurement stations in the US.

Also the quotation of dubious source material, bias and manipulation of facts, as well as a critique on the concept of decarbonization.

 

Whilst we can agree that it has gotten warmer overall, the average temperature has increased only slightly (+/- about one degree in the space of a century) and average temperatures in the past 20 years or so indicate that we might well be on the road to another cool down period, despite more carbon dioxide in the air.

 

What's also little talked about is the fact that yes, we do see more damage done by hurricanes and other natural catastrophes in recent years and decades - but mainly because there are more people and more stuff (buildings, cars, etc.) on this planet. 

Thttps://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

...that's an awful lot of words to say "don't trust any sources wrt climate change other than the ones I tell you to, including the shameless hack Anthony Watts who I will quote in detail" (wattsupwiththat.com is slickly delivered BS of exactly the type he thinks he rails against). I thought I could be verbose, but this guy leaves me in the dust.

 

The dismissal of coral bleaching as a purely natural event, and the hypocrisy of saying to maintain an open mind and then in the next few paragraphs state some sources categorically cannot be trusted are particularly irksome.

 

Now that's out of the way...there is a nugget or two of a reasonable point in the "what should we do" section about preparing for consequences rather than looking to decarbonise (cats already out the bag, really), advocating next-gen nuclear power as a future solution, dealing with air pollution in general as well as CO2 and getting more research done so that we know what we're dealing with.

 

CO2 levels and global temperatures have been much higher in the past and life still flourished, but the sticking point is how such an abrupt lurch back to the past, when it happens, will affect specifically human civilisation - in particular with respect to food and potable water sourcing.

 

And overpopulation is a tempting target but the Malthusian line isn't accurate - given correct logistics and the benefit of human innovation, the Earth can support the amount of humans it has now and more besides. However, if that does by chance turn out to be wrong, I guess we'll get to know about it in no uncertain terms.

[Alf Bentley]

On 09/05/2019 at 16:06, Buce said:

 

How Remainers can tactically vote for the best result in the Euro election.

 

https://www.remainunited.org/

 

Good little Euro elections simulator tool here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

(scroll down halfway to the bar chart)

 

It applies average figures of recent polls to the different regions for the Euro elections to show how the electoral system works and who could be elected in each region.

 

My guess is that their figures might be a bit low for Lib Dems, Greens & Brexit Party and a bit high for Change UK & Tories, but broadly in line with polls.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Oh absolutely. Speaking cynically again, I suspect that there is a certain embarrassment, for want of a better word, for a Conservative supporting, Fox News watching, man to raise a transgender daughter among his peers and social groups and I wouldn't be surprised if that comes in to it. It's perhaps the equivalent of me finding out that a future daughter of mine is engaged to a fox hunting, UKIP voting, Forest fan.  

Yep, can't boast to your fishing mates about having a nice young daughter to give away at the next purity ball when this happens, can you?

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Good little Euro elections simulator tool here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

(scroll down halfway to the bar chart)

 

It applies average figures of recent polls to the different regions for the Euro elections to show how the electoral system works and who could be elected in each region.

 

My guess is that their figures might be a bit low for Lib Dems, Greens & Brexit Party and a bit high for Change UK & Tories, but broadly in line with polls.

 

Hmm.

 

I'm not seeing a bar chart at all.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Hmm.

 

I'm not seeing a bar chart at all.

 

Horizontal bar chart about 1/3 of way down.

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...that's an awful lot of words to say "don't trust any sources wrt climate change other than the ones I tell you to, including the shameless hack Anthony Watts who I will quote in detail" (wattsupwiththat.com is slickly delivered BS of exactly the type he thinks he rails against). I thought I could be verbose, but this guy leaves me in the dust.

 

The dismissal of coral bleaching as a purely natural event, and the hypocrisy of saying to maintain an open mind and then in the next few paragraphs state some sources categorically cannot be trusted are particularly irksome.

 

Now that's out of the way...there is a nugget or two of a reasonable point in the "what should we do" section about preparing for consequences rather than looking to decarbonise (cats already out the bag, really), advocating next-gen nuclear power as a future solution, dealing with air pollution in general as well as CO2 and getting more research done so that we know what we're dealing with.

 

CO2 levels and global temperatures have been much higher in the past and life still flourished, but the sticking point is how such an abrupt lurch back to the past, when it happens, will affect specifically human civilisation - in particular with respect to food and potable water sourcing.

 

And overpopulation is a tempting target but the Malthusian line isn't accurate - given correct logistics and the benefit of human innovation, the Earth can support the amount of humans it has now and more besides. However, if that does by chance turn out to be wrong, I guess we'll get to know about it in no uncertain terms.

Don't discredit the article. It's brilliant, and the author doesn't claim to speak the truth - he's all for giving another perspective, based on clinical research done by experts.

Give it time and read it all.

 

We should be wary of climate change, but even more wary of the people trying to sell us climate change. Know what I mean?

[Alf Bentley]

@Buce

 

Under this heading......

(Can't copy graph)

 

 

How our voting system works in the EU elections

 

Seats in the EU elections are determined by the D'Hondt system of proportional representation. It works like so:

1. The party with the largest vote share gets a seat
2. Their original vote share is then divided by the number of seats they have, plus one
3. This process repeats until no more seats are left to be allocated

You can see how this would play out in each region, based on the latest polls, by clicking simulate below.

 

 ENGLAND  North East  North West  Yorks & Humber  East Mids  West Mids  East  South West  South East  London SCOTLAND WALES   

Simulate 

 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

@Buce

 

Under this heading......

(Can't copy graph)

 

 

How our voting system works in the EU elections

 

Seats in the EU elections are determined by the D'Hondt system of proportional representation. It works like so:

1. The party with the largest vote share gets a seat
2. Their original vote share is then divided by the number of seats they have, plus one
3. This process repeats until no more seats are left to be allocated

You can see how this would play out in each region, based on the latest polls, by clicking simulate below.

 

 ENGLAND  North East  North West  Yorks & Humber  East Mids  West Mids  East  South West  South East  London SCOTLAND WALES   

Simulate 

 

 

Check your link, Alf, because I'm not seeing any of that.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Check your link, Alf, because I'm not seeing any of that.

 

I copied it from the page after clicking the link that I'd posted and that you'd quoted back to me.

 

Unless you're having a senior moment (surely not?!), presumably the info is available to me from that FT post but not to you? 

 

If you're interested, I just Google searched "Telegraph" and "How our voting system works in the EU elections" and it came up as a Top Story....

 

Sorry, got to work now! 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Don't discredit the article. It's brilliant, and the author doesn't claim to speak the truth - he's all for giving another perspective, based on clinical research done by experts.

Give it time and read it all.

 

We should be wary of climate change, but even more wary of the people trying to sell us climate change. Know what I mean?

I did - though without checking many of the supporting links depending on provenance.

 

My viewpoint remains the same, it's a well written, slickly presented rhetorical package of sources that believe climate change isn't problematic in one easy list - and no matter how well presented those sources are they remain questionable by the very idea that they posit that the mainstream scientific community is engaged in a massive cohesive lie for...reasons. Also, the author claims to not be quoting gospel or speaking the truth, but instead directing readers to those that supposedly do - how is that any different?

 

If you believe that to be brilliant, then fair enough - the standards for scientific brilliancy must be lower elsewhere because IMO the only thing brilliant about it is the clever use of narrative and the points made above.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I copied it from the page after clicking the link that I'd posted and that you'd quoted back to me.

 

Unless you're having a senior moment (surely not?!), presumably the info is available to me from that FT post but not to you? 

 

If you're interested, I just Google searched "Telegraph" and "How our voting system works in the EU elections" and it came up as a Top Story....

 

Sorry, got to work now! 

 

Utterly bizarre.

 

The link takes me to a completely different page - no bar chart, none of the text you posted.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Utterly bizarre.

 

The link takes me to a completely different page - no bar chart, none of the text you posted.

 

 

Try Googling if you're interested? It came straight up for me that way, too. I'll leave it in your capable hands now, before this dialogue pisses everyone else off!

[MC Prussian]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I did - though without checking many of the supporting links depending on provenance.

 

My viewpoint remains the same, it's a well written, slickly presented rhetorical package of sources that believe climate change isn't problematic in one easy list - and no matter how well presented those sources are they remain questionable by the very idea that they posit that the mainstream scientific community is engaged in a massive cohesive lie for...reasons. Also, the author claims to not be quoting gospel or speaking the truth, but instead directing readers to those that supposedly do - how is that any different?

 

If you believe that to be brilliant, then fair enough - the standards for scientific brilliancy must be lower elsewhere because IMO the only thing brilliant about it is the clever use of narrative and the points made above.

The article is based on or quotes many an accomplished scientist. As you can probably imagine, academia does suffer a lot from lack of funds or the fight for funds, and it's not unusual for objectivity to be thrown out of the window in order to secure funding. There's bias involved, dependencies, as well as politics, investors, money. Too many parties have their particular interests at heart, and not necessarily the one of the people.

 

Again, climate change is real and we should be aware of it. In the grand scale of things - the more you look back on the timeline - its influence and danger to humanity are vastly overdramatized (we need context and nuance) - over the course of the past few decades and the last century certainly true, but not dramatic. That's what I take from it.

How much or at what stage it does or will have an effect on our daily lives, nature and the planet remains open for debate. Personally, I'm seeing and hearing a lot of hysteria, exaggeration and I shall thus remain sceptic. And it could well be that we are in fact on our way to another mini ice age.

Edited 16 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

@Buce:

Are you opening the Telegraph link on a smartphone or a laptop/desktop?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

 

Link works fine for me on a MacBook. Bar graph is there, too:

Edited 16 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

@Buce:

Are you opening the Telegraph link on a smartphone or a laptop/desktop?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/european-elections-polls-latest-brexit-party-forecast-win-majority/

 

Link works fine for me on a MacBook. Bar graph is there, too:

 

It worked eventually but only after I disabled my adblocker.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The article is based on or quotes many an accomplished scientist. As you can probably imagine, academia does suffer a lot from lack of funds or the fight for funds, and it's not unusual for objectivity to be thrown out of the window in order to secure funding. There's bias involved, dependencies, as well as politics, investors, money. Too many parties have their particular interests at heart, and not necessarily the one of the people.

 

Again, climate change is real and we should be aware of it. In the grand scale of things - the more you look back on the timeline - its influence and danger to humanity are vastly overdramatized (we need context and nuance) - over the course of the past few decades and the last century certainly true, but not dramatic. That's what I take from it.

How much or at what stage it does or will have an effect on our daily lives, nature and the planet remains open for debate. Personally, I'm seeing and hearing a lot of hysteria, exaggeration and I shall thus remain sceptic. And it could well be that we are in fact on our way to another mini ice age.

Fair enough, I'm not into buying conspiracies when I can see no good reason why the academic community would push this one en masse when they could get much more from pushing the idea the status quo is hunky-dory and I'm not keen on the idea of gambling with the future of humanity when actually taking action in this case has no real down-side, so I guess we're going to have to disagree.

 

Guaranteeing the continued existence of civilisation against whatever threats it might face shouldn't be a political football.

[Alf Bentley]

Oh! Thank the Lord! A leader is coming to rescue Britain......... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48299424

 

"Boris Johnson has said he will run for the Conservative Party leadership after Theresa May stands down".

 

[Buce]

 

Israel Folau sacked: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2019/may/17/israel-folau-v-rugby-australia-social-media-decision-live

 

I don't know if anyone has been following this case but it has some interesting implications regarding free speech and social media posts.

[ozleicester]

Australia's "strong borders" government sent 1000 legitimate refugees to USA, in exchange received 2 known murderers/terrorists who were then resettled in australia.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/17/morrison-knew-in-2016-of-australias-resettlement-of-rwandans-accused-of-killings

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, I'm not into buying conspiracies when I can see no good reason why the academic community would push this one en masse when they could get much more from pushing the idea the status quo is hunky-dory and I'm not keen on the idea of gambling with the future of humanity when actually taking action in this case has no real down-side, so I guess we're going to have to disagree.

 

Guaranteeing the continued existence of civilisation against whatever threats it might face shouldn't be a political football.

I dont know about this topic as a whole, but I have to say this statement is in a bit of a denial of the hysteria of the things atm-

 

Lots of people are making whole careers based on the idea that things 'arent hunky dory': that there is a toxic patriarchy, that society is oppressing trans people. that gender is in fact a confusing multicoloured rainbow of tangled oppression and socially constructed evils, or whatever it is they're saying today.  And similarly, children now get to ditch school, parrot the climate change line in the streets and then become lauded as heroes

 

To say there is no personal benefit for indivuduals espousing this is not quite right

 

Having said that, I have no idea on the actual science of climate change.  Most talk about it seems a lot of useless posturing though which of course should make anyone wary of the subject.