Using The Wrong Model

I was a bit surprised this morning to learn that

An asteroid as big as five football fields is set to narrowly pass by Earth tonight — and should be visible as it scraped by.

The rock, which has been named 2004 BL86, will be the nearest any asteroid will get to us until 2027.

It will come closest to us at 4.19pm GMT, but should be visible into the evening.

My first thought was that it was so overcast here in Britain that there was no chance me seeing it. My second thought was to wheel out my home-built orbital simulation model, and get hold of the state vectors (position, velocity) of BL86 from NASA, and check out just how close it was going to come. Half an hour later, I’d found that its closest approach was going to be 1,199,582.5 km from the Earth on 26 Jan 2015 at 16:21 UT/GMT. Since the mean distance from Earth to Moon is 384,400 km, that’s a bit over 3 times the distance of the Moon. They were right about the date and time, but in my book it’s an exaggeration to call that “narrowly passing”, or “scraping by”.

The next thing I read was an article by Jonathan Chait, dated January 22, 2015, in New York Magazine:

Why Climate-Science Denialism Should Disqualify Anyone From Holding Office

which attacks US  senator and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee James Inhofe:

This is his [Inhofe’s] stated belief: It is not even possible for human activity to contribute to climate change. It is arrogant to think so.

It is hard to imagine how such a bizarre conclusion could survive even a mind as primitive as Inhofe’s. To believe that human activity contributes to climate change, you need to believe two things. One, that certain gases trap higher levels of heat than other gases. Second, that burning fuel containing those heat-trapping gases releases them into the atmosphere. Which one of those beliefs is arrogant?

And then I read The Costly, False, Futile Climate Crusade by physicist William Happer, also dated January 22, 2015.

Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming by more carbon dioxide are wrong. Economic discount rates aside, policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models.

earth-pacificNow I wish I had a climate computer simulation model like my orbital simulation model. In fact, I wish I had a climate simulation model running inside my orbital simulation model, which already includes a tilted, spinning, 3D-mapped Earth. Since I always know where the Sun is, I could calculate the power of the incident solar radiation at any point on the Earth’s surface, minute by minute, day by day, and calculate how the Earth’s surface and atmosphere warmed and cooled throughout the day. It’s the sort of thing I used to do when I was a university research assistant.

But I don’t have any such model. I’ve tried several times to build one. But every time I’ve ended up walking away baffled. Because I don’t know how to simulate clouds and cloud formation, and I don’t know how to simulate convection currents and winds, and I don’t really know how to simulate carbon dioxide absorption and emission.

And above all, I don’t know how to tell when my model is working right. With an orbital simulation model, if your Earth goes round the Sun in about 365.25 days, it’s working pretty well. How do you tell if your climate model is working well?

And what that means is that I can’t do with climate claims what I did today with the prediction about asteroid 2004 BL86. I can’t sprinkle some carbon dioxide on my climate model and see what happens.

So I’ve got no way of telling whether Jonathan Chait in the New York magazine (and a whole bunch of climate scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann) is right, or James Inhofe and William Happer. You either believe one side, or you believe the other. And whether you believe them may well boil down to whether you like the suits they wear, or their hairstyles, or the number of letters they’ve got after their names.

And nobody else has got any way of independently checking the rival claims these people are making. Because they haven’t got their own climate models either.

So I really don’t know how anybody can form a scientific opinion about global warming, one way or other, if they haven’t got their own way of checking. But if you’re the kind of person who believes what “experts” tell you, then you’ll probably follow Jonathan Chait. And I’m not inclined to believe everything that “experts” tell me. But when William Happer tells me that climate alarmism is based upon “failed computer models”, I can readily believe him. Because I’ve written a whole bunch of failed computer climate models myself, as I’ve just explained. In fact, I could even claim to have considerable expertise in writing failed computer climate simulation models. And I suspect that climate scientists’ computer models aren’t very much better than mine. After all, they don’t work either.

Interestingly, Jonathan Chait explains his own personal climate model when he writes:

One, that certain gases trap higher levels of heat than other gases. Second, that burning fuel containing those heat-trapping gases releases them into the atmosphere.

Now when something is “trapped”, it can’t get out. So he’s got a model of the atmosphere which has got all these gases with heat “trapped” inside them. And presumably higher levels of trapped heat manifest themselves as higher temperatures.

And he’s also got fuel that contains these gases, and which releases them into the atmosphere when burned.

So it’s very easy to see how his climate model works. When you burn fuels, you release more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, and as they trap heat they get hotter. And, voilà, you’ve got global warming. In fact you’ve got runaway global warming, because the atmosphere just gets hotter and hotter and hotter, as more and more heat gets trapped in it.

If I used the same model as Chait, I’d be really, really worried about global warming. I’d be a thoroughgoing alarmist. I’d probably be out campaigning every day.

But he’s using the wrong model. Firstly, trivially, fuels don’t contain heat-trapping gases. They release them when they combine with oxygen in the air during combustion. And secondly, gases don’t trap heat. They absorb heat, but they can also emit heat. The “trapped” heat gradually leaks away, just like when a hot cup of coffee loses heat and cools.

Or, not to be unkind to him, he’s got an incomplete model of how heat behaves. Or an over-simple model. And maybe it’s precisely because he’s using an over-simple model of the atmosphere that he can’t understand why, unlike him, the “primitive” or “deranged” mind of James Inhofe can’t grasp the terrible danger posed by global warming. It’s a matter of simple addition:

If a candidate for a managerial job at your office insists that two plus three equals seven, it wouldn’t matter how well-qualified this candidate may be at any other aspect of the job.

All those heat-trapping gases pumped into the atmosphere add up.

And on the basis of this simplistic model, he’s calling for a Republican climate sceptic senator to be disqualified from office. That’s his goal. And it’s a political goal.

In the 500+ comments under the article, I came across a video,  with someone called Art Robinson explaining that the political struggle underlying the climate debate in America is “a battle to save our constitutional republic”. And I think he’s right.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Using The Wrong Model

  1. Some other Tom says:

    Frank, rather than simulating clouds, could you just load in cloud/weather data from a realtime source? Even write in a means of of updating at set intervals from some source ‘live’? I am, of course, guessing that the difficulty in simulating them is their track, pattern, density, etc. As simulating a layer of moisture should be some what simpler. Just a thought.

    I wonder too if in your simulation that layers of atmosphere must be included, along with magnetic fields? Fascinating and interesting as always.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Loading a realtime source would be very data heavy I suspect. And it would mean dodging the question of how clouds form, and how they disperse. I try to do everything from first principles.

      I’ve tried modelling clouds as single layers that reflect incident radiation. And they seem to have a big effect. If the Earth has 100% cloud cover, and 90% (or whatever) of sunlight is reflected back into space, the Earth will cool down rapidly (according to my model). The question is what the right amount of cloud cover is, and how clouds appear in some places and not in others. I’d guess that when there’s no cloud cover, surface water will evaporate and form clouds, and the clouds will result in cooling of the surface, which would stop further evaporation, and maybe there’s a regulatory feedback process.

      My real problem is that while I know how to do the Newtonian mechanics in my orbital simulation model, and the mechanics of stress and strain in orbiting bodies, and I know how to do the heat flow math (from my research background), I don’t know how to model winds, air buoyancy, clouds. (I’ve never tried to model magnetic fields incidentally). There are things I know how to do, and there are things I don’t know how to do. Some of my physics is pretty robust, but there’s a lot that’s missing as well.

      • Some other Tom says:

        I would imagine modeling clouds, winds, etc would be extremely difficult, if not impossible as they are chaotic, like economies. I dont know that anyone can actually simulate them for more than a few days at a time… I understand it would be data heavy, but I was thinking more in basic terms of something like a Doppler radar which shows the thickness, direction, etc. You could have a separate program to pick up shapes, sizes, density and let your model ‘check it’ as an external reference… I am thinking you could filter the data on a color scale as often that is how Doppler is presented; darker shades equal heavier/ denser masses. You could even convert to grey scale and throw out whether it is rain, snow, hail, the nature of any precipitation…

        Random thoughts… As an aside; I envy your abilities with this. I once thought it would be fascinating to build an earth simulator and tweak variables like the distance to the sun, the rate of spin, the mass and length of a year… Even the the tilt, that we have seasons… It would be a fun and interesting model, especially given with a computer you can speed up time, you could see what 10000 years of a particular scenario would result in over the course of a few hours…

        • Look up the Doppler effect………….

        • Frank Davis says:

          I once thought it would be fascinating to build an earth simulator and tweak variables like the distance to the sun, the rate of spin, the mass and length of a year

          That’s pretty much what I’ve got, gradually constructed over about 20 years. I’ve got a tilted spinning Earth, and a world map drawn on it. And all the planets. And any other body I want from NASA (which is a fantastic resource). And about 30,000 stars as well.

          I want to improve the accuracy, implement true 3D displays, and more. The pleasure is in solving the puzzle of how to do it.

        • Edgar says:

          I’m not sure why convection might be relevant. The energy content of the atmosphere is what it is: how the air is moving, or not, doesn’t affect the energy content.

      • Edgar says:

        On cloud formation, generally this should reduce the rate of cooling of the atmosphere for two reasons: (1) The cloud layer acts as an insulating blanket for the atmosphere and surface below the cloud, and (2) the formation of water droplets from vapour releases latent heat into the atmosphere. As for modelling clouds, you need at least humidity and temperature defined over the whole atmosphere to determine when saturation occurs: a simple procedure then would be to add up, vertically, all the gridpoints where there is saturation and use that as the thickness of the cloud at that position. As for the hypothesis that the claimed Global Warming is due, at least in part, to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, there is a simple experiment which you might like to try. You need: one greenhouse, one hot day, and a thermometer. Go into the greenhouse and note the temperature. Now breathe for a few minutes. The amount of CO2 increase per unit volume of the greenhouse atmosphere will, after just a few minutes, be much greater than the CO2 increase in the atmosphere as a whole for all of human history. Check the temperature.

  2. This is his [Inhofe’s] stated belief: It is not even possible for human activity to contribute to climate change. It is arrogant to think so.

    What Inhofe is actually saying is Im not part of the globalist community of politicians

  3. junican says:

    I sort of agree with cousin Harley. It is not so much that the models is incorrect; it is more that one does not have sufficient knowledge to create a realistic model – at all.
    The Sun radiates heat as a result of ‘chemical’ processes within itself. These ‘heat waves’ radiate into cold, empty space. But you might just as well say that cold, empty Space ‘sucks’ heat from the Sun.
    Cold, empty Space also sucks heat from the Earth.

    ===
    There is a massive, massive unanswered question of the greatest importance. That question is, “WHAT IS SPACE?”
    If it is totally empty of anything then it is NOTHING. But if it is NOTHING, then it cannot exist. Thus, SPACE, because it exists, must be A THING.
    But, because we have no way of knowing what the properties of SPACE are, at the moment, we pretend that it is NOTHING; that it is EMPTINESS.

    I think that Einstein got close to stating that Space is A THING; that Space is not NOTHING: that Space is a physical THING. Thus, by General Relativity, SPACE can be bent and twisted. Thus, for example, the reason that the Earth (and all the other planets) circulate around the Sun is that the Sun bends Space. Thus, Gravity is not some kind of magical force. Rather, planets like the Earth move through space at a certain speed, but the space that they are moving through is bent by the Mass of the Sun. When you accept that ‘Relativistic Theory’ (which has not yet been proven to be true), then you can see that it is possible that the speed of light can vary in extreme circumstances. Such circumstances can exist anywhere, but would be so minute that they would be incalculable except in extreme situations. Thus, the bending of light waves by the Sun’s gravity was observed about a hundred years ago. But there is a serious problem. How can the Sun ACT without knowing that light waves are passing by? There can be only one answer, which is that the Sun does things to the space around it. The Space bent by the Sun affects light passing through that Space.
    But it is also possible that light is not an entity in itself. It might well be a property of Space. Thus, it might well be that the sunlight, which you think is an emanation (some sort of gas, if you like) is, in reality, an oscillation of SPACE.
    Meanwhile, the Charlatans in the Kingdom of the FCTC are slavering over the financial gains, while crackpots like Cameron slaver over political gains.
    The more that I see Cameron on TV, the more that I see a chimera; a sort of ‘shape-shifter’. He may well really exist as a human being, but the evidence is becoming evident that he is a ghost.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Well, I’m a Newtonian thinker. I use Newton’s laws of gravity and motion in my orbital simulation model. I use the classical physics that I was taught a long time ago.

      I can sort of understand where Einstein was coming from, but I’ve never understood relativity theory.

  4. smokervoter says:

    Over at Anthony Watt’s blog there is a discussion of my state’s crazy global warming energy policies. One of the commenters said that he (Mr. Watts) lives in California. I always thought he lived in the UK.

    The comment thread gets really good, especially for a born and bred citizen of the Crazy Quilt State to read through. Petrol (gasoline over here) is selling for under $2.00 in much of the country. It’s around $2.45 here, 15 cents of which is attributable to a California Air Resources Board regulation which took effect on January 1st.

    There was a terrific comment from a Tom O that I could link to or just copy and paste in its entirety. I’ve chosen to do the latter just because I like it so much.
    ====

    “I think the real bottom line here is that somehow everyone decided that the world is a mathematical creation. That is, that it is digital, and not analog in any manner. Just as digital music sounds “similar” to analog sound, it isn’t the same. Just as digital photos are similar to analog photos, they, too, are not the same. And, of course, digital worlds, as represented by computer models may be similar to Earth, but they are the same.

    Everything in our way of life has gone from reality based to being “digitized.” You will live 6% longer if you don’t do this or that, based solely on mathematical simulation and statistical analysis. I would not be surprised to have some researcher come out with I will live 2.5% longer if I urinate holding it with my left hand as opposed to my right hand, based on some half baked concepts that were able to be represented mathematically.

    Nearly all research today is done on a computer, not working with reality. We are so used to decimal fractions that we see such BS as an increase in world temperature of .02 degrees and have totally disconnected from the fact that that is far less than the margin of error of the process used to arrive at it. I seriously doubt that the measurements were in .0001 degrees plus/minus, that there was less than one layer of processing used to arrive at the calculated value, and I am sure that the margin of error for each process will add up to something far greater than a one hundredth. Yet we swallow this bogus garbage because it was “mathematically derived on a computer” using programs that can have 16 digits of accuracy.

    No wonder I gave up on science and scientists since they don’t exist any more. They are right up there in mythology with politicians that care for their constituency.”

    ====

    He’s ably describing an irksome modern affliction which I call ‘percentitis’. I know, I used to be badly stricken with it myself after I first started toying around with the spreadsheet module that came with Microsoft Works 2.0. We carpenters/construction estimators/building designers and amateur political prognosticators are natural born math nuts.

    No one seems to be capable of writing or speaking about anything these days without tossing out a virtual boatload of lousy, stinking %%%%%%%%%%%’s !!!

    Claim: California’s policies can significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions through 2030

    • Frank Davis says:

      I don’t know where Anthony Watts lives, but he’s definitely an American. He had a career in weather/meteorology. His big study was to get volunteers document all the weather stations in the USA, showing how many of them were sited wrongly (and therefore not producing trustworthy temperatures).

      The only down side to him is that he’s pretty strongly antismoking. Both his parents died of lung cancer, and he blames it on their smoking.

  5. Lepercolonist says:

    Thanks for that Art Robinson link, Frank. Art did prove there is no consensus about global warming. At 12:17 on the video :

    “All democracies in history have failed. All devolved to mob rule. So they gave us a constitutional republic.”

    “But now, too many people have taught us or taught our people, that if 51% of us vote away the property of our neighbors, then that is O.K. And that is wrong. That is inconsistent with our republic.”

    This mob rule is what happened in my state of Ohio on November 7, 2006. A total smoking ban. So now, smokers have no representation in our State government. Smokers can not win these kind of polls but we should have SOME rights. Where are our representatives when we need them ? You can’t put everything on the ballot. Such as global warming, nuclear energy, etc. What happened to our Constitutional Republic ?

    • Frank Davis says:

      But was it mob rule in New Orleans?

      Seemed like the opposite to me. Seven councillors – just seven – imposed a smoking ban on their city. There was no mob baying outside demanding it.

      And I bet it was no different in Ohio. A few people decided among themselves that there should be a smoking ban, and they enacted it, because they could

      That’s how it was in the UK too. There was little or no public demand for a smoking ban. There were just a few doctors and lobbyists calling for one. And then the government decided there should be a ban, and parliament voted it in. Once again, no mobs anywhere. Definitely not 51% of people deciding what the other 49% should do. More like 1% of the people (politicians) deciding what the other 99% should do.

      Politicians everywhere seem to have all decided that once they’ve been elected, they’ve been effectively crowned as kings, and they behave accordingly.

      • beobrigitte says:

        That proves that politicians are not capable of thinking long term. 4 years is enough to earn them comfortable retirement. And that will do them.

      • Lepercolonist says:

        What I meant to say is that putting a smoking ban on the ballot nearly guarantees a victory for the anti’s. Smokers are clearly outnumbered and underfunded. State Issue 4 in Ohio was a very reasonable platform to counter State Issue 5. State Issue 4 lost in a landslide. This is mob rule.

        On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places.
        Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it. This new law did not ban smoking in Ohio. Rather it banned smoking in indoor places accessible to the public. Ohio’s smokers were still allowed to smoke, as long as they did so outside, away from the entrance and exit doors of buildings.
        State Issue 5 was an initiative placed on the ballot by a conglomeration of groups. These groups included the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Ohio Health Commissioners Association, the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio State Medical Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, among other organizations. Collectively, these organizations became known as SmokeFreeOhio. Begun in 2005, SmokeFreeOhio actively campaigned for the statewide smoking ban and collected almost 300,000 signatures on petitions supporting the group’s efforts.
        As SmokeFreeOhio campaigned for a ban, another organization, known as Smoke Less Ohio, sought to amend the Ohio Constitution. The group, which primarily consisted of bar, bowling alley, and private club owners, as well as individual smokers, succeeded in placing a constitutional amendment, State Issue 4, on the ballot in November 2006, which would have guaranteed smokers’ right to smoke in some public places if Ohio voters had approved this issue. State Issue 4 actually would have overturned smoking bans that many of Ohio’s communities had already established. Voters soundly rejected the constitutional amendment sixty-four percent to thirty-six percent.
        The statewide smoking ban officially went into effect in Ohio on December 7, 2006

        • Frank Davis says:

          I see.

          In the UK there was no public vote for any ban. The Labour party had a manifesto commitment to banning smoking in pubs that sold food. But when they were re-elected (2005?) they were put under pressure to make the ban comprehensive (by senior doctors, lobbyists, and their own government health officer (equivalent to Surgeon General in the USA). If you read the link under the Deborah Arnott image in the right margin, she explains how it was done. It was all back door stuff, with the people completely excluded. At the time, about 70% of people wanted some sort of provision for smokers.

          The same seems to have been true elsewhere. Ordinary people didn’t want smoking bans.

          Also I helped out Smokervoter a few years back with California’s Proposition 29, which was to slap a tax on cigarettes. Californians narrowly rejected it. (See “29” in my word cloud in the right margin)

        • smokervoter says:

          Also I helped out Smokervoter a few years back with California’s Proposition 29, which was to slap a tax on cigarettes. Californians narrowly rejected it.

          And thanks again, Frank.

          I’ve been pressed for time lately so I copy and pasted this directly from the post 29 victory article I wrote for my website.

          “The final 24,076 unit majority wasn’t as tight as one might surmise by a cursory glance at the headlines. If you eliminate the vote of the fourteen contiguous counties surrounding San Francisco, with their shared maniacal obsession with criminalizing smoking, the proposition got slaughtered. The other 44 counties, comprising fully three-quarters of Californianos, voted Prop 29 down to the tune of 55% to 45%. Absent the Bay Area and environs rather than losing by thirty thousand, Proposition 29 would have lost by 400,000 votes. Not even close. Clearly there is something wrong with the geopolitical division of the state as it now stands.”

  6. Bob Kemp via CFACT

    January 24 at 8:58am ·

    .

    Someone in NASA had orders to support Obama’s political agenda, clearly NASA has been corrupted by this administration.

    2014 Was Not the ‘Hottest Year on Record’. So Why Did NASA Claim It Was? – Breitbart

    “2014 was the hottest year on record.” Q: If the above statement is not true – and (see below) it isn’t – would it make it any more true were it to be uttered in an…

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/23/2014-was-not-the-hottest-year-on-record-so-why-did-nasa-claim-it-was/

  7. Rose says:

    McRib and anti-smoking billboards in case of unfortunate juxtaposition
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/mcrib-and-antismoking-billboards-in-case-of-unfortunate-juxtaposition-10003158.html

    Bill Stickers has a lot to answer for : )

  8. petesquiz says:

    I was just listening to a report on the 70th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and an interesting thought struck me. If you are one of the very few people who believe that the holocaust didn’t happen you are described as a ‘Holocaust Denier’. In this instance the tag is correct because there is overwhelming evidence including plenty of eyewitness accounts to corroborate the facts.

    However, the Climate Change crowd have coined the term ‘Climate Change Denier’ for all those of us that don’t necessarily believe that any climate change that may (or may not) be happening is man-made.

    By coining this phrase they have quite powerfully and subliminally linked the patently unsustainable position of denying historical facts with the position of not supporting a scientific hypothesis that has yet to be proven absolutely. And, as anyone who understands science knows, science does not give absolute proof of anything it merely gives a theory that explains the facts to the best of our knowledge at the time.

    • beobrigitte says:

      However, the Climate Change crowd have coined the term ‘Climate Change Denier’ for all those of us that don’t necessarily believe that any climate change that may (or may not) be happening is man-made.

      The climate change crowd skillfully excludes the thing that formed our planet. Example: if the yellowstone park “super” volcano errupts, we all face starvation. There is NOTHING we can do about that. Least of all, our climate “scientists”.
      btw, it is overdue to blow.

  9. roobeedoo2 says:

    Apols O/T but ‘bat shit’ Ellison and the troubles she’s causing receives a bigger audience:

    http://order-order.com/2015/01/27/plain-pack-fireworks-expected-at-cabinetosborne-may-hammond-confront-hunt-over-pack-back-track/

  10. Smoking Ban can be canceled in 2018

    State Duma is eager to freeze existing law which does not allow smoking in bars and trains.

    26.Jan.15 5:05 PM
    By Elena Tkachenko
    Photo susanin.udm.ru

    11

    Smoking Ban can be canceled in 2018
    We all know that the next FIFA World Cup 2018 will take place in Russia. It means thousands of people from all over the world will visit this country. That is why State Duma is eager to cancel smoking ban which came into force starting from the 1st of June 2014.

    Andrey Krutov is among deputies who are ready to cancel this ban due to the fact that drastic anti-smoking measures can result in conflicts and quarrels between policemen and foreign football fans. This can make a negative effect on the overall image of the country.

    The main idea of such cancelation is to allow smoking in cafes, bars, restaurants, trains, airports, railway stations and on stadiums. This can be one only in special places provided for smokers.

    Note:

    FIFA World Cup 2018 will take place in Russia. It is already 21st tournament where the world’s strongest football teams compete for the main prize. This will be the first time when this tournament is taking place in Russia. Moreover this is the first time when it is arranged in Eastern Europe. It will take place in 11 Russian cities on 12 different stadiums.
    http://www.toinnov.com/news/smoking-ban-can-be-cancel-2601/

  11. Smoking Scot says:

    May I suggest you take a gander at Mr. Briggs blog?

    He had the audacity to write a post on pretty much the same topic as yourself and, like you, discovered the model was deeply flawed.

    His post of 14 Jan seemed to have deeply offended someone and they jolly well went and hacked his site!

    First 3 posts, starting with the 3rd.

    http://wmbriggs.com/

  12. http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/27/pm-struggling-to-shut-down-plain-packaging-story.html#.VMgUWb9djiI.facebook

    PM struggling to shut down plain packaging story

    DateTuesday, January 27, 2015 at 19:13

    Six days ago, shortly after health minister Jane Ellison announced the Government was going ahead with plain packaging, journalist Iain Martin tweeted:

    So, how’s that going?

    Well, Thursday saw an avalanche of opposition – from Forest, the IEA, the Institute of Ideas and others.

    Friday revealed ruffled feathers among leading Conservatives such as LBC presenter Iain Dale and Nigel Evans MP:

    • Progressing beautifully just as its done in history,the smoking bans are becoming a political liability!

      • Vinny Gracchus says:

        Harley, I hope you’re right. But I suspect it will be uneven for a bit. The Antis are moving in Mississippi now, same with Kentucky (as you know, but there is some opposition), and Oklahoma; in California outdoor and apartment bans, as well as bans on vaping are the rage. There is some pro-choice reportage coming out, but the Antis are still flooding the media. In NOLA there appears to be some behind the scenes opposition brewing to the recently passed ban. The plain packages move is rightfully getting flak.

        • I been waiting for a media Blitz by the Kentucky Nazis as they ony dropped one story in the last 3-4 weeks. In Miss they are trying but going nowhere as usual that’s why they are screaming for a statewide referendum/vote on it even saying if the people say no we wont be back again……….We all know that’s a lie. But that single statement means they are desperateas hell as time is running out IM TELLING YA!

  13. Pingback: The Euro is like Hotel California | Frank Davis

  14. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    “How do you tell if your climate model is working well?”

    Simple. If it predicts we are all going to fry by the third week in 2100, it is working perfectly. That’s computer aided global warming for you.

    DP

    PS That nice Anna Soubry, MP who signed us up to the EU tobacco products directive without bothering to ask parliament was moved to the MOD. Let’s hope she doesn’t start a war without asking first.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s