The British Social Attitudes survey has been released and the BBC quickly reported its highlights this morning on the radio…people want to pay more tax [so supporting Corbyn’s narrative] and more people are accepting of same-sex marriages [sotake that you bigoted dinosaurs of the DUP!].
What didn’t I hear?
76% of people said the UK should leave the EU or that if it stays the EU’s powers should be reduced, up from 65% in 2015
Strange omission by the BBC…one of the most pressing issues and surely one that we need to know what the public think as the Remainders keep telling us we don’t know…and the voters don’t know what they voted for….but now we do know…76% want to leave the EU.
As usual the BBC tries to spin this as the ‘highly educated’, and you’re supposed to interpret that as the ‘more intelligent’ than the less educated which just isn’t true, and the young all wanting to remain…
The research – carried out in the months after last year’s EU referendum – suggested that views on immigration had become more polarised, with the young and highly educated more likely to believe that immigration was good for the economy, while older people and non-graduates were more likely to say it was bad.
Curiously the BBC didn’t report the last figures that suggested the vast majority wanted to get in with Brexit and that included many of those who voted Remain.
New poll suggests more than two thirds of people ‘now support Brexit’
A total of 68 per cent of respondents would like to see Britain withdraw from the EU, the latest YouGov figures show.
Some 45 per cent said they were Eurosceptics, while 22 per cent said they wanted the Government to ignore June’s election result.
A total of 23 per cent – described as “Re-Leavers” – said that they voted Remain last year, but now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.
Is it coincidence that the BBC keeps dodging making such information highly visible? Could it be that such data undermines their narrative that there has been a massive flip-flop and no one wants Brexit now? Certainly that’s what the BBC propaganda machine is trying to engineer as it pumps out a continuous stream of doom-laden stories about the economy and the negotiations…most false or the BBC’s own unique interpretation of the facts.
It appears that the BBC love to portray people who disagree with them as less intelligent and/or nasty. Our lavishly funded national broadcaster should spend more of its resources actually doing thorough research on the important issues rather than virtue signalling and sneering.
Did colleges and universities only come about in the last ten years or so?
What do they mean by ‘highly educated’ ? I have three diplomas and so I can boast I am ‘highly educated’ in my chosen profession, however that doesn’t qualify me for any self righteousness about anything other than what I have my wall baubles for.
http://www.gender.cam.ac.uk
These are the people who are purporting to speak on behalf of the ‘educated’ Brit. FFS.
Looks like the remoaners have been getting their inspiration from Logan’s Run where everyone over the age of 30 is killed of ? While the niave stupid youngsters fall for everything the BBC and its print arm Al-Guardian spin them about how rosy everything is in the EU garden, While those of us whose IQs get beyond our shoe sizes have long worked out the reality that the EU garden contains Triffids rather than Roses. Not of course that you will ever here that on the [European Uninon funded to the tune of £22 million since 2007] BBC. But of course the youngsters and remoaniacs reality do think that jeremy the garden gnome has a magic money which is going to fund all the free sweeties that jeremy the garden gnome has promised then as they know its true as they saw it on the BBC and we all know the BBC is the world’s most trusted broadcaster. Sarcasim mode of!!
It’s a ridiculous notion anyway; university education is barely worth the paper it’s printed on, and has absolutely no bearing on your ability to make logical decisions, say, about the EU for example.
BTW I have a BSc and an MSc.
Diane,
Disagree with you . I got 3 of them there degrees and the 3rd one was a masters which I took while working shifts. Damn near killed me it was so tough. – I’m not saying my views are in any way superior or inferior to yours .
I laugh when al beeboids tell me I’m thick for voting brexit. I remember being sold the lie by Heath in 72. I have studied and passed EU law courses.
I was offended by Osborne and the rest trying to frighten me via the al beeboid media machine.
All we can do is end free movement – people – goods – services and agree controls which are mutually acceptable . Anything else won’t be brexit .
I fear all HMG will do is take the gold star off that awful flag and keep us in
Fedup – agree. I expect that most of the graduates on this forum earned them before they were devalued and that they might have been in more valuable subjects than media studies.
I can honestly say that I use the skills I learned in my degree today that actively improve the UK’s balance of payments. Exports matter.
Someone who uses public funding to write poetry or understand ‘media’ is not a net contributor. If that’s what you want to do then fine, pay for it yourself.
UKIP’s funding (no tuition fees for maths, physics, chemistry, biology etc.) for science subjects made a lot of sense. Compare and contrast with Corbyn’s vote buying strategy of no tuition fees for ALL university courses.
It depends what university education you have. STEM subjects are mainly safe – they are based on empiricism and facts. Non-STEM subjects are much more variable and some or maybe many of them are “not worth the paper they are printed on”. The expansion of the universities that took place from the sixties onwards has been mainly in the mickey mouse subjects which have been transformed by the feminists into Minnie mouse subjects. There has also been a watering down of difficulty and a watering down of English language skills – for the purposes of diversity and keeping the students (the “consumer”) happy.
The pollsters make the mistake of confusing the completion of a degree course with ‘being educated’.
It USED to mean this, but like most progressives, they’re behind the times and since 1996 (when the first wave of former-poly students graduated) a degree certificate simply means exposure to the marxist sausage-factory that is the modern university. So ‘educated’ no longer necessarily means intelligent, clever, perceptive, well informed, well read etc.
One has to be really naive and uneducated to believe AGW even after the high priests of the AGW cult were caught lying.
https://i1.wp.com/principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/real-greenhouse-theory.jpg?resize=748%2C530
How many kids do you think cotton on that they just create out of thin air [excuse the pun ] ”double sunshine”.
Examine how much energy that two-sided air layer is radiating. In the real world, when a unit of light is absorbed by a flat plane that’s free to discharge this energy in two directions, its emission on each side will be cut in half. This means that a 1 square meter plane emitting 1 Watt per square meter will radiate half a Watt from one side and half a Watt from the other — certainly not a Watt from each side! Otherwise, two Watts would be emitted for each Watt absorbed.
or that 2 surfaces at equilibrium cannot warm or cool each other, neither can increase or decrease the others operating frequency.
Even if the Atmsophere temperature did match that of the surface whose radiation it is responding to, its own radiation would be unable to raise the surface’s temperature – since its temperature is the SAME as the surface’s. It is an axiom of physics that heat can be transferred only when a temperature difference exists.
“It is an axiom of physics that heat can be transferred only when a temperature difference exists”.
That is true of “sensible heat” but not “latent heat”. Imagine a wet surface and above it a dry air flow at exactly the same temperature. There will be evaporation of surface water into the dry air above even when the surface and the air are at the same temperature. This evaporation results in heat transfer from the surface to the air above.
Another point is that the temperature associated with global warming is not the temperature of the earth’s “surface” – but the temperature of the air above the earth’s surface – in practice it is measured at between 1 to 2 metres above the local surface using a thermometer mounted inside a Stevenson’s Screen. Then a mathematical-physics “correction” is applied to take account of the altitude – it is “corrected” to sea level altitude. It is effectively the “air temperature” at sea-level altitude.
There is nothing odd about anthropogenic global warming – the only issue is the reliability of the magnitude of the “prediction” and whether the policies touted to address the predictions will have any impact other than to make the poor poorer, the rich richer, the West poorer, the Arab Nations richer, China & India richer …
My own view is that the policies touted to address predicted anthropogenic global warming are ineffective and will create possibly worse environmental damage. The only solution in my view – if you want a “solution” – is to reduce the human population drastically or to be building more and more nuclear power stations. The problem with nuclear power stations is that “rogue nations” could use nuclear power stations as a cover for the production of nuclear bombs or “dirty bombs” – this is what Iran is planning.
”There is nothing odd about anthropogenic global warming – the only issue………….the only issue is it doesn’t exist outside of a modelled environment, and that is a pretty big issue, ..
ps latent heat rises instantly, drawing in cold air from above behind it, as it moves into its space, the surface is always warmer than the air above it, as the air above it is always warmed by the surface below it and rising dissipating the energy by molecular collision up the gas column, pressure and gas density dictate the rate/speed of thermal flow up the gas column.
Nice and simple the arths surface is the hottest surface in the earths system,
Hi Manxman and NCBBC, you are both wrong. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect was worked out in the nineteenth century and anthropogenic global warming was first predicted towards the end of the nineteenth century by Svante Arrhenius. You may claim that it is nonsense but that would be just wishful thinking. I am not going to get into the complexity of it. If “scientists” didn’t have a clue then they wouldn’t be able to create fairly accurate weather forecasts with these models. Even Donald Trump accepted it – the reason why he pulled out of the Paris agreement was because it would have not have had a significant effect on climate but would have had a significant effect on the US economy.
” If “scientists” didn’t have a clue then they wouldn’t be able to create fairly accurate weather forecasts with these models.”
Really? They are between 60 and 70 per cent wrong where I live, which gives the lie to that claim. I will leave it to Richard Pinder to point out the holes in the rest as he is better at it.
You have just given a very good example of confirmation bias – something good scientists don’t do.
There is an unbelievable amount of evidence and data that proves global warming. The science is well understood and the data is sound.
Climate change deniers will look for the 1% of rogue data that supports their confirmation bias to reinforce their mistaken beliefs.
To be honest some of the climate change deniers posts on this site are embarrassing to read and it ruins the level of intellect usually shown here.
its not “rogue data” its bodged data, changed data non working models and non-sense predications that dont happen that concerns me
Its being told you need to pay extra for energy by celebrities flying round the world in private jets and taunting us with their conspicuous consumption
Its the green lobby’s stance on massive unlimited immigration and its need to concrete over every piece of grass in england
It maybe real but you sure do look like your fiddling the figures
and from where im sitting im seeing the costs but not sure what im paying for
I’ve never understood what this bottle experiment is supposed to prove. In the example in the video there is no control over how much ‘heat’ is applied to each bottle, there is no control over gas pressures, (the left-hand bottle could be operating at twice the pressure of the right-hand bottle if all of the generated carbon dioxide is retained). How much of the radiation energy passes straight through each gas? Is that the test or is it a meaure of specific heat?
The real purpose of course is, “Carbon Dioxide! Higher Temperature!”, the validity of the experiment as an analogue of the Earth’s atmosphere is never explained.
The sun warms the ground by radiation. The ground warms the air by conduction, this includes the CO2 molecules. If the CO2 molecules are warmer than -30C they can’t absorb any radiation from the surface in the 15 micron band, basic science. The CO2 is radiating slightly less than half that 15 micron band radiation back to the surface. This energy is gained by CONDUCTION with other air molecules as they rise and cool. Do the math and you will find that the best CO2 radiation from the atmosphere can do is to reduce the rate of surface cooling by slightly less than 9% AT NIGHT ONLY. Slightly more than half the 15 micron band radiation from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere escapes to space continuously. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are effectively a coolant.
I think people are divided into two groups.
(1) Self Educated Brexit Supporters: Those who studied Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy and other University subjects that cannot do without intelligence. As well as those who read books on European Union Governance, by authors banned from appearing on the BBC.
(2) Uneducated Remain Supporters: Those who studied Art, Drama, Media studies and other University subjects that no longer need intelligence. As well as those who read Guardian columns on how wonderful the European Union is, by authors who are regulars on the BBC.
I heard that there are now ten times more University students than in my day, while at the same time, according to the United Nations, progressive education has dragged Britain down almost 30 places in the “Best Countries for Education” table. While, in my day, Tory support in the Universities had the same majority as it did in Mensa, and has in Mensa today. But now, Tory support in Universities at 7 percent, is as low as it is in the worst of Labours inner-city shitholes. So it implies that we need mass immigration because areas with a 93 percent support for Labour such as inner city shitholes and Universities, are full of unemployable and inadequately educated young people.
But the evidence is that as people get older, they become better educated and wiser, with a turning point at the age of forty, beyond which the majority of population become highly educated.
Stalin, Hitler and Huxley talked about the wisdom of youth, with the highly educated Hitler youth reporting on parents who were not as well educated about the new establishment, as the young were. And I think Aldus Huxley suggested a cut off age of thirty rather than forty, as a way of preserving the survival of anti-democratic regimes such as Communism, Nazism or the European Union.
Richard, interesting post, I broadly agree with your points, but also disagree to some extent.
Firstly, I don’t think you, or (especially the BBC) are allowing for individualism enough, I disagree strongly with the BBC’s tendency to ‘pigeon hole’ people, something they do all the time according to: race, age, nationality, sexuality, gender, political views etc….
To use the Experian agency as a classic example of overly-rated (and fundamentally flawed) logic of this kind, once you start to put people into neat little boxes according to some criteria such as: age, education, gender, or post code, it’s very easy to become overly confident in your ability to ‘predict opinions’ and to start stereotyping.
According to Experian my home address is ‘crumbling rustbelt ex-industrial heartland’, or some such, which means I am (according to them) aged in my 60s, am unemployed, retired, or work in manual labouring, read the Daily Mail, vote Labour, and my highest qualifications are what I left school with. In actual fact, I’m in my early 40s, I’m a self-employed single (male) parent, I don’t read any of the papers, I’m a swing voter, and I’m educated with a first degree in a STEM subject from a top UK University, and a PhD (gained P/T whilst employed by the MoD) in the same. If I look at the rest of the rural ex-council homes (now all privately owned except one) that make up my street and postcode, there is only one household (the LA assisted one) which (probably) fits the description above. My other neigbours include several retired couples, and a couple of older widows, A gay (lesbian) couple consisting of an author of children’s books married to an artist who has painted potraits of royalty, two semi-retired ex-farmer brothers who are staunchly UKIP, and a number of younger couples, one of whom I know run their own Estate Agency, and another the man of whom is a Signals Engineer in the RAF, and the woman runs her own dog care service from home.
In other words Experian couldn’t have got it much less correct, and all those businesses that pay Experian so they can target the addresses in my post code with junk mail offering ‘Cheap Bus Tours of the Industrial Heartlands of Britain’ are wasting their time and money.
My point is that stereotyping doesn’t really work, we’re all a complex jigsaw of our background, upbringing, culture and life experiences, and these days people are more varied than ever, when the BBC talk about ‘multiculturalism’ the only form they can see is ‘race’, when really that’s only a tiny part of the bigger, and rapidly changing picture.
The BBC like banging on about the ‘youth’ voting for Remain, when actually I know several people in their 20s who were adamantly Brexit, and several of my parent’s generation (70s) who were adamantly Remain. Maybe, on average, more of the ‘young’ voted Remain, and more of the ‘old’ voted Brexit, but if you look at the statistics critically, that’s only based on a small sample size (see where that’s got recent polls!), and it ignores large minorities in both camps who defied these statistics. As for that old ‘educated/un-educated’ saw, I think we all know that sending 50% of the young to university was never a good idea, for a start 50% of any generation are hardly university material, and second off we now have a vast excess of young people who’ve left university with a useless degree and massive debt – not a great start in life, poor bastards, it’s them who’ve been conned really.
Likewise, with the Cult of Corbyn, maybe my circle of family and friends are unusual, but I know several of the older generation who’ve been swept up in it (when you’d think they should be wiser), and several of the younger who can’t stand him, and see through the propaganda – in fact I seem to know a number of younger people in their 20s who are bordering on extreme right wing (to my eyes and ears), so I’m quite sure it’s not as clear cut as the BBC are making out. Interestingly those right wingers in their 20s are mostly a group of Engineering and Science graduates – although perhaps we shouldn’t read too much in to that?
Going back to your post, even more than the Hitler Youth, the angry, (mostly, but not entirely) young, and (mostly, but not entirely) workshy mob following Corbyn remind me of Mao’s Red Guard, having read about them I find some rather disturbing similarities, but your point is sound, I think, extreme politicians from the Far Right to the Far Left have used impressionable young fools in this way before, and doubtless will again.
” I think, extreme politicians from the Far Right to the Far Left have used impressionable young fools in this way before, and doubtless will again.”
At the risk of sounding like an MP3 player on repeat the Far Right are national collectivists and the Far Left are international collectivists. The major achievement of the ‘left’ has been to define the line between them and their fellow collectivistst as the only political battleground , with us ‘moderates’, not being ‘of the left’ but ashamed of being labelled ‘of the right’.
We must fight on ‘our’ battleground, the individual versus the collectivist. Do you want to be told which part of the tractor to make? Do you want to be told how many tractors to make?
can you point me to these present day far right politicians???
Im struggling to find anything resembling a main stream white hitler (i presume they have to be white)
it always makes me laugh to see the islamists described as a tiny minority in the same breathless sentence as worrying about the rise of the far right
we know there’s at least 27897(0) islamists from 4 million but i doubt you can find 23000 actual neo-nazis out of 61million
Nepotism exists in the BBC…
Say no more..
But of course the elite within the BBC are highly intelligent Oxbridge educated…….white of course!!!!
Not sure about intelligence!!
Upper echelons of the BBC are hideously white..
They dictate diversity ..as long they hang on to their jobs..
As far as I remember, Lord Hall and those members of the BBC Trust identified by Mensa members as morons, had all studied Philosophy. Which means all the most powerful people running the BBC have been educationally fucked up, by being taught the enlightenment regressive ideologies of political philosophy’s such as Marxism.
Jesus Christ wasn’t highly educated . Is that why the BBC like to denigrate his supporters . He did like fishermen and shepherds and wasn’t keen on the Scribes and the Pharisees ,the highly educated of their time .
He liked tax collectors too.
On the subject of Jesus, true he mixed with everyone, I don’t think wealth, education or lack thereof came into it. But Jesus was not uneducated. He was a Rabbi, (teacher). He is likely to have practised carpentry as a trade not only as a family business but also as part of his required formal training. He spoke at least two (Hebrew & Aramaic) probably three (Greek) languages.
Many people referred to Jesus as Rabbi. His disciples (Luke 7:40), lawyers (Matt. 22:35-36), ordinary people (Luke 12:13), the rich (Matt. 19:16), Pharisees (Luke 19:39), and Sadducees (Luke 20:27-28). The very Jewish Yeshua ben Yosef. (Jesus son of Joseph) fit the description of a first century rabbi, especially one at the most advanced level.
But I still think he would want us to leave the EU 😉
I just thought he was of humble origins , without qualifications , and not an expert that the Beeb would invite into their studios .
Oh I’m sure you are right, Beeby would never invite him. He didn’t have an affluent background or come from a high status family but he wasn’t one-dimensional.
Was Jesus a real person then ?.
I mean i went to Sunday school every week etc, but i don’t remember any of it, well girls, i remember girls that’s all.
I was reading here the other day about the Old & New testaments and koran, the Old testament being the root to both New testament and koran, more of a historic account, and New more about life and teachings, same with the koran and the dark prophet.
Always thought Jesus was mythical.
Manx,
The Koran is a contradiction of what we call today- the Old & New Testaments. It was set up as an opposition.
Muslims like to claim certain traditions which are not backed up by the prophets prior to More ham mad.
Jesus is a historical figure, a real person.
If you like to think of Jesus as a myth, The Koran would be more suited to your tastes as the Jesus portrayed there is a different character than the Biblical Jesus. The Koran denies & claims to supersede the teachings of all the Hebrew prophets.
The Koranic Jesus is Muslim. That should be enough to keep you laughing for the rest of the night.
Thanks Lucy, i prefer Christian society and its moral structure, or rather i preferred it to what we have now.