In todays news...

[KungFooBob]

Poor fishies!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63996982

[cheb]

24 hours to save the NHS not be a staple of electioneering?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64002936

Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has said he would not "pretend the NHS is the envy of the world" as he promised reforms under a Labour government.

He gave a speech setting out Labour's plan to fix the NHS in England, which he said was in "existential" crisis.

Labour would train more staff and use the private sector to bring down waiting lists, he said.

He branded left-wing critics of his proposals "the true Conservatives".

Speaking at the right-leaning Policy Exchange think tank, Mr Streeting suggested the NHS was not "delivering a standard of care that patients should be satisfied with".

Labour, he said, "will give the NHS the investment and staff it needs, but that has to result in better standards for patients".
Strikes

Mr Streeting's reformist agenda has thrust him into the centre of a fractious debate about the future of the NHS at the time when nurses are locked in a dispute over pay with the government.

How Covid has dealt the NHS a lasting blow
Largest nursing strike in NHS history starts
Nurses strike is a badge of shame, Starmer tells Sunak

The shadow health secretary said Thursday's unprecedented strike by nurses was the result of "12 years of failure to get our economy growing", pay freezes and funding cuts.

But in wide-ranging speech lasting about 15 minutes, Mr Streeting said the NHS's problems went beyond the strikes and laid out what a Labour government would do to address them.

In recent years, the NHS - which was founded under a Labour government in the 1940s - has faced significant financial and workforce challenges, made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The care backlog is at a record high, with NHS England figures showing 7.2 million people were waiting to start routine treatment at the end of October.

Mr Streeting said it was clear NHS staff were "working as hard as they can", but added: "We cannot continue pouring money into a 20th-century model of care that delivers late diagnosis and more expensive treatment".
Roadmap

The shadow health secretary, who was last year treated successfully for cancer in an NHS hospital, said reform was the only option.

He said he endorsed a report by Policy Exchange, which lays out a roadmap for how Labour could achieve its target of training 15,000 medical students a year, if it wins the next general election.

On top of this, Mr Streeting said Labour's plan would involve:

Training 5,000 new community health workers a year
Using spare capacity in the private sector to bring down NHS waiting lists
Fair pay, terms, and conditions to stop the exodus of care workers

Attempts to reform the NHS have proved politically contentious, especially for Labour, some of whose MPs are ideologically opposed to private-sector involvement in the health service.

But Mr Streeting said Labour would not shy away from reform under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, who had planted the party "firmly in the centre-ground".

"It is plain to see for anyone who uses the NHS that it is failing patients on a daily basis," Mr Streeting said. "So yes, we are going to reform it and make the NHS fit for the future."

"Ironically, it is those voices from the left who oppose reform, who prove themselves to be the true conservatives."

Momentum, the left-wing group set up to support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, criticised Mr Streeting's speech as a "deeply worrying and self-defeating intervention".

"His refusal to back nurses' demands for fair wages or a public NHS free from private-sector involvement fly in the face of public opinion and Labour's own mission and history," said Momentum's co-chair Hilary Schan.

In a recent interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Streeting was quoted as saying the NHS must "reform or die".

Mr Streeting said some "online bad-faith actors" had suggested he was "ambivalent about which my preferred option would be".

"I do believe the crisis is existential for the NHS," he said.

"And it is in defence of the NHS's founding principles, funded through progressive taxation, free at the point of use, that I make the reform argument."

[Screwdriver]

"What do we want?"

"NINETEEN PERCENT!"

"When do we want it?"

"NOW!"

Need to plant a fair few magic money trees I reckon. I support the nurses, I support the notion for better pay. I believe giving the NHS more money just leads to more inefficiencies. You can't run public health like a business and basically, that's what the NHS (and corporate enterprise who are desperate to get on the gravy train) are trying to do.

Decisions will be made with a view to profit and paradoxically the more expensive they can make the treatment (or choose which patient to prioritise) the more profit they make. Of course, since there is no magic money tree, such profit based medical services will inevitably cost exponentially more to run, leading to more private investment, more corporate control, less value to the consumer.

[ZRX61]

Awkward...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-s ... 2sekzwl1NI

[Pirahna]

Awkward...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-s ... 2sekzwl1NI

Nothing awkward about that at all, it's a climate change denial site. If you Google for something like "who are climate change dispatch" you'll get all the information you need. Or do you? Perhaps the people claiming to fact check sites like Climate Change Dispatch are really being funded by oil companies to surpress the truth?

[Screwdriver]

Awkward...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/new-s ... 2sekzwl1NI

While there's nothing more I like than to jump into another CC debate, I'll just flag this up as an observation based on a quick look at the author(s).

Stuart Jenkins. Physics, specialising in climate stuff. Super smart chap investigating specifically non CO2 contributions to cc. Wrote a scientific treatise which the article "refers" to.

Dr. David Whitehouse. Doctor of astrophysics (??). Bit of an asshole, professional cc denier. Wrote the article.

So my guess based on multiple previous occasions is that the report is the deniers spin on the real science. Using an otherwise valid scientific paper to prop up an argument which has nothing to do with either the paper or the actual science.

Just to add one teensy little snippet: we should remember we are in an interglacial period. A period during which we should expect a cooler climate than "usual" *wrt Milankovitch cycles) before we plunge back into an ice age proper. The fact that the earth is warming is alarming from that perspective despite is seeming to suggest warming should add some balance etc.

That is a specious argument since the climate is such a finely balanced non linear system which finds its equilibrium over centuries/milennia (pick a time frame). Whereas the effects we are seeing are not on the geological timescales we should expect without agw.

The problem is that in finding a balance or equilibrium, any non linear system is going to start behaving wildly and swinging from one extreme to the other before it settles into a (relatively) steady state...

[ZRX61]

Nothing awkward about that at all, it's a climate change denial site. If you Google for something like "who are climate change dispatch" you'll get all the information you need. Or do you? Perhaps the people claiming to fact check sites like Climate Change Dispatch are really being funded by oil companies to surpress the truth?

All they do is post articles from other websites... In this case the article originated here:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/21st-centu ... tists-say/

I dismiss all the crap that's based on projections, computer modelling & wild ass guesses because they're just assumptions. When you ask for actual evidence to back up the wild ass guesses etc they tend to be a bit lacking in proof... We have this thing called "the scientific method", when you apply it to the wild ass guesses etc the modelling & projections readily fall apart. If we're expected to follow the scientific method for everything else, why the fuck does this subject get a free pass?

[Screwdriver]

All they do is post articles from other websites... In this case the article originated here:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/21st-centu ... tists-say/

I dismiss all the crap that's based on projections, computer modelling & wild ass guesses because they're just assumptions. When you ask for actual evidence to back up the wild ass guesses etc they tend to be a bit lacking in proof... We have this thing called "the scientific method", when you apply it to the wild ass guesses etc the modelling & projections readily fall apart. If we're expected to follow the scientific method for everything else, why the fuck does this subject get a free pass?

What you say is not true.That is not "all they do". Look at the Headline: "warming trend change may not be due to greenhouse gasses, leading climate scientists say". Leading scientists do not say that. They do not even say that in the references the site links to. They use selective quotes from the published papers to make it appear as if someone has said something they really have not. We know a song about that...

A for your "not believing" rant, you really need to nail down exactly what it is you don't believe. The entire scientific establishment??

What do you believe? People who say the things you want to hear?

[ZRX61]

I'm hardly describe ignoring something as "a rant"

I have a hard time giving credibility to people who are paid stupid money to publish wild ass guesses that support a political scheme to extract money & piss it all away in the name of "doing something"... Especially since it is now little more than a religion.

[ZRX61]

One of the issues here is that the politicians have spouted "Data shows.. blah blah blah.." which is repeated by the media... Then you look at the data (NOAA, NASA etc) they claimed said *whatever* either never said anything of the sort, or actually said the exact opposite. And it's happened so often as to make any claims by Biden, Johnm Kerry or Newsom etc totalling lacking any credibility.
Right now we have Biden stating that leaving US oil in the ground will cut world pollution... but getting it from Venezuela instead apparently doesn't cause any pollution at all.

[Screwdriver]

Yes. That I think we can all agree.

When you said "they" you didn't specify who "they" were. Journalists, politicians and the mainstream media will misrepresent the actual science and twist words until it suits their agenda. Always have, always will.

Problem is in this modern era of mass communication, todays "news" can be shouted from every rooftop. Later when the truth emerges, it's too late, the damage is done.

[ZRX61]

*They* would be Biden, Kerry & Newsom. There's also a few others, but they are the main offenders.

Right now we have Newsom celebrating the impending removal of four dams in the Klamath Basin, which not only store water, but also have hydro-electric plants... So in a State that can't keep the lights on & doesn't have enough water, we're going to destroy the dams to "restore the natural river for Salmon"..
Except it won't, because there's 20,000,000 cubic yards of silt behind the dams that will kill everything in the river when it gets flushed out. Destroying the dams is also a clear violation of the Bald & Golden Eagle protection act.. but they aren't fish, so fuck em.

[Count Steer]

*They* would be Biden, Kerry & Newsom. There's also a few others, but they are the main offenders.

Right now we have Newsom celebrating the impending removal of four dams in the Klamath Basin, which not only store water, but also have hydro-electric plants... So in a State that can't keep the lights on & doesn't have enough water, we're going to destroy the dams to "restore the natural river for Salmon"..
Except it won't, because there's 20,000,000 cubic yards of silt behind the dams that will kill everything in the river when it gets flushed out. Destroying the dams is also a clear violation of the Bald & Golden Eagle protection act.. but they aren't fish, so fuck em.

So, you are there on the ground as it were. Who is responsible for the complete buggeration of the Salton Sea? Can't be Newsom, he's not been around long enough. Biden? Probably not.

Industrial scale 'farmers' perhaps? It can't all have gone wrong since Arnie was in charge surely.

[ZRX61]

So, you are there on the ground as it were. Who is responsible for the complete buggeration of the Salton Sea? Can't be Newsom, he's not been around long enough. Biden? Probably not.

Industrial scale 'farmers' perhaps? It can't all have gone wrong since Arnie was in charge surely.

The current scale of buggeration is going to pale into insignificance as Newsolini intends to use the area for lithium extraction.
It was a dry lake until water broke through & flooded the area. It was two years before they fixed the leak. The only water it gets (in recent years) are over flows from the farmers on the area, if it wasn't for them it would have resorted to being a dry lake decades ago. Now the farmers are better at managing their water & are being blamed for it drying up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

[Count Steer]

So, you are there on the ground as it were. Who is responsible for the complete buggeration of the Salton Sea? Can't be Newsom, he's not been around long enough. Biden? Probably not.

Industrial scale 'farmers' perhaps? It can't all have gone wrong since Arnie was in charge surely.

The current scale of buggeration is going to pale into insignificance as Newsolini intends to use the area for lithium extraction.
It was a dry lake until water broke through & flooded the area. It was two years before they fixed the leak. The only water it gets (in recent years) are over flows from the farmers on the area, if it wasn't for them it would have resorted to being a dry lake decades ago. Now the farmers are better at managing their water & are being blamed for it drying up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

Might as well let it dry and take the lithium and all the nitrates and start again then. It seems like a long time, ongoing American story.

[ZRX61]

Except that lithium extraction takes huge volumes of water.. & the only place to get that, is from the farmers.

In other news...
The farmers have had their 2023 allocation cut to 5%... but they still have to pay for the 95% they won't be getting.

The *water year* runs from Oct 1st to Sept 30th. This year is off to a good start with almost 200% of the average snow pack, the past two years at this time were around 20%... So you can see we won't be getting any extra wa... oh wait..

[ZRX61]

I see Clarkson has stepped in it again, in truly spectacular fashion this time. He's turning into a miserable fucker like Cleese.

[dern]

I see Clarkson has stepped in it again, in truly spectacular fashion this time. He's turning into a miserable fucker like Cleese.

He did that years ago. He's rapidly graduating in to a nauseating vile right wing cunt.

[Yorick]

I see Clarkson has stepped in it again, in truly spectacular fashion this time. He's turning into a miserable fucker like Cleese.

He did that years ago. He's rapidly graduating in to a nauseating vile right wing cunt.

Every time I see left wing this or right wing that, I think the author is a twat.

I have no idea what either means but idiots get pent up about it.

[dern]

I see Clarkson has stepped in it again, in truly spectacular fashion this time. He's turning into a miserable fucker like Cleese.

He did that years ago. He's rapidly graduating in to a nauseating vile right wing cunt.

Every time I see left wing this or right wing that, I think the author is a twat.

I have no idea what either means but idiots get pent up about it.

You don't know what right wing and left wing means?