Posts by Tim Hannah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
my gut tells me that those 40 years of apparent progress in gender equality would evaporate. does that mean that all this "empowerment" is so much hot air?
Not sure if Georgina Beyer counts in this context as being a female MP, I'd have thought yes, but she was there, and gender equality didn't collapse as a result.
Of course, she may be exceptional in being up front and staunch about her history. There could be a different outcome if an MP was outed against their will.
She said during the Prostitution Law Reform bill:
I support the bill, because, as everybody knows, I have had experience in the sex industry—and I am the only member of this Parliament to have had it.
It does make you wonder whether she was correct, in the most general sense. What would be the result if an MP was outed as paying for sex, rather than merely ironically watching strippers?
-
A possible Democratic President won't be around till Jan 2009. We have an election before then. Might not be Labour having to do decide on whether to u-turn.
-
Looks like we need a real statistician to front up here. I failed Statistics 101 in 1980...
Not really, this is a minor correction in the US surface temperature dataset which has made two years that were basically tied for warmest year on record stay basically tied for warmest year on record in the US.
The last time this happened was apparently this year, when NASA changed from thinking 1934 was the warmest US surface temperature year on record to thinking 1998 was.
Graphs pre and post correction are at Deltoid - Global warming totally disproved again.
Another fairly interesting post there includes:
Because the 1998 and 1934 numbers were so close, minor adjustments could easily change their ordering. This is what happened with the GISS numbers released [earlier] this year. In that data set, 1998 was a tiny amount warmer than 1934. This change was not much ballyhooed. Nor was it a little ballyhooed. In fact, it wasn't mentioned by anyone at all. Because it didn't matter. When the data correction made 1998 and 1934 flip back, this [current] change was much-ballyhooed by Steve McIntyre, even though he knew that it didn't matter.
-
Apparently, a Canadian scientist by the name of Steve McIntyre found a 'bug' in NASA's computer software. NASA adjusted their data and now the averages have cooled somewhat. The hottest year is now 1934, not 1998. So it's still a very fluid scientific debate.
That's so true. And if Russell wasn't in the pocket of the Global Warming Industry he'd have mentioned it, even linked to it.
Oh, wait...
-
One question that hasn't been directly asked, and that I think is worth pursuing, is whether it might be sensible to disincentivise current step parent families? After all, even if we did stop new ones forming by an unspecified simple technical policy change like mandatory seatbelts we're still looking at over a decade of preventable child abuse.
I guess the question is, do we care enough about the kids to 'incentivise' the breaking up of all non-biological families?
-
Dutton et al. are talking about the gloom and doom merchants (eg, Al Gore), who of course wouldn't have a vested interest in promoting their theories.
Ah, sorry, it seems you are characterising Al Gore as someone who is being silly because his predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing.
Have you actually seen the movie? The one where he says, this is a really bad scenario that might happen if we do little or nothing, and here are some things we can do to prevent that really bad scenario?
To go from there to, as far as I can make out, "what Gore says will happen if we don't do anything won't happen because we will do something and therefore he's a doom and gloom merchant and what he says might happen if we don't do anything won't happen simply because doom and gloom merchants are always wrong" seems a bit of a leap. As well as a mouthful.
-
What you seem to be saying is that all those doom and gloom merchants are being silly because their predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing.
Can you point at any of these doom and gloom merchants? Presumably they don't include the IPCC or the Gore movie, as neither of them fulfill your requirements.
-
He spoke to the media, even against direct orders... He explained that he did so because there was "definitely a cover-up" underway by the Army.
By the way, James, was that what you meant by:
the Army was on top of it anyway
-
Honestly Simon, with a load of bollocks, how is it possible for someone to believe such utter crap?
Well, maybe you can explain how it's possible for someone to believe such utter crap as:
ANSWER et al get their knickers all in a bunch about a few meatheads on the night shift at Abu Graib doing some stupid stuff to some prisoners, during which no one was injured for which the soldiers were punished
There is an argument at least, that US actions, generally but not exclusively outside the US, have had a worse impact on global human rights than Castro could ever dream of. Now where's your argument that no one was injured at Abu Ghraib?
-
Guys get custodial sentences at a 3:1 ratio compared to Gals.
So Yes Women have Rights but with reduced Responsibilities.
Thanks Michael, now presumably you can point to the bit where it says that guys get custodial sentences at a 3:1 ratio compared to gals for the same crimes?
All you've shown so far is that women either don't commit as many crimes that have custodial sentences as men, or get away with those crimes when they do commit them.
I know which of those options I'd bet on, but you seem to believe it's the second option, and I'd be interested in seeing your evidence.