993 posts • joined 30 May 2007
Re: Backdoor fundraising?
You already do if it's in real time. iPlayer doesn't require it, but realtime streaming already does. How they monitor and control it is another matter however!!
Re: Oh so it's ok for GCHQ to spy on peoples webcams...
Ah yes, but when they do it, it's entirely professional and they get no gratification out of it other than knowing it's a job well done. When you do it.............well, no need to elaborate!!
Be interesting to know if the number of replacement keyboards at GCHQ due to liquid spillage has gone up since this started.
Re: Anonymous Cluetard Cue Matt Bryant's forceful explanation on how this is all necessary...
""....and how we would've been blown to shreds by them terrorists long ago...." In Iraq in 2010, when the CIA was hunting the local AQ leader al-Masri, rumours were that they had tried using hijacked email and chatroom accounts of other Egyptian militants to try and trick al-Masri out of hiding. They soon found out al-Masri did not trust 'blind' coms becuase he could not see the face of the people he was talking to. When he was traced to his hideout in Tikriit he was online using his webcam.... though I don't know if it was a YM session. Oh, sorry, did that info make your head hurt?"
So, in order to catch one or two people, spying on everyone is acceptable? It's the kind of logic that says it's OK to kill 1000 innocents, as long as you get the 1 you were looking for. It's completely out of proportion to the issue.
Also, there were far more effective ways of stopping what was going on in Iraq. Top of the list would have been to stop lying, stop killing thousands of innocents and get out of the country when your reason for invading was shown to be complete and utter made up rubbish!!
"You said it yourself, a cheap, easy laugh but at who's expense?"
Nobodies expense as it wasn't aimed at anybody!! You're looking to take offence and strangely enough finding things. If you spent less time looking for reasons to be offended and more time just getting on with things and being less sensitive on other people behalf, perhaps there would be less grief in the world.
It has something to do with the article in as much as the story was about Nancy and the person in question was a boy. The poster simply make a quick comment in a jovial way. It's called humour. Almost everyone (I say almost as you obviously didn't) reading it knew the context in which it was posted and knew the person was simply joking. Therefore, it wasn't interpreted as homophobic as it was certainly not posted in that manner and the intent was clear, which was in no way homophobic. It was simply a cheap, easy laugh to brighten peoples day.
People who read far too much into peoples off the cuff comments are actually doing some very worthwhile causes a lot of harm. Exactly the same can be seen in womens rights and other areas. It's the difference between being literal with words and interpreting them in a more intelligent way, taking context and obvious intent into account.
Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike
"Whilst it is always amusing to see how the sheeple simply fail to read any background info before bleating their baaah-liefs, it's not surprising the poor little woollies are confused when Greenwald and co keep changing their stories. First of all they claimed Miranda was just an e-mule, then they claimed he was working for The Guardian, and then they claimed he was not just a journo but actually deeply involved in the Snowdope work. I suggest you read the original Guardian report linked below, then the second link on how Greenwald's story has evolved."
I agree the situation is very confusing and there have been lots of different claims, even by the same person. Hence, you cannot possibly know which is true and which is false and therefore you can't possibly make factual statements based on them.
So, my comment on how exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be party to its disclosure is absolutely right. People have said he was going to be, people have said the exact reverse. Nobody, least of all you, know the truth, so you can state facts.
As the police failed to charge him with an offence under the OFA, it would appear they also don't know, as otherwise, it would be a clear breach of the OFA and should result in charging at least and probably prosecution. So, even the police seem to back my position and disagree with yours!!
Re: Psyx Not quite the same
"The coppers in the Miranda case used the anti-terror laws as it gave them a nine hour interrogation period and the powers to seize his electronic equipment. "
You have to stop and hold someone using legislation pertinent to the reason you're stopping them. You can't just pick any old reason you fancy and worry about the charge later, although the police don't seem to understand this. Of course, additional or different charges could result, unrelated to the original reason, but the original reason must stand scrutiny and be proportionate and correct for the offence or belief you are investigating. It would be like holding someone under suspicion of murder in a shop to allow you to search them and eventually charge them with shoplifting.
"They justified it on the grounds that the information Snowdope was releasing was already leading terror groups to change their coms, meaning that there was a reason to believe any material on GCHQ techniques being carried by Miranda could also be of use to terrorists."
An oft cited reason, which so far has no evidence to back it up. Terrorists have known for decades (and a great many other people as well) what the NSA, GCHQ etc. were up to and how deep their monitoring was. There are clues everywhere. Known terrorist makes a mobile phone call and a few hours later, the location is hit with a missile from a drone. How does that happen without mobile phone calls being intercepted on a pretty much global basis? Little of what Snowdon released was particularly knew, it simply gave credence to the rumours circulating for decades.
"The coppers had to let Miranda go after nine hours as they did not have enough to charge him by the end of that period, probably because they had not managed to decrypt and analyse his devices by then. Should Miranda be stupid enough to set foot on UK territory again he could very well be charged with both breach of the OSA and terror laws."
Nope. They had to let him go as he had committed no offence. Given that he had the password on him, they could have decrypted well within 9hours, would have seen some of the content and could easily have charged him had an offence been commited. My bet is he can come and go as he likes with no issues.
Re: @Mad Mike @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"
@Ian Michael Gumby.
"The information which Greenwald and Snowden have released has damaged the security of the UK and US countries."
Another statement without foundation or grounding.
"You're never going to find an 'aha!' moment or the proverbial silver bullet and even when you do, many will not believe it."
Because nothings actually happened, I'm having to claim there never will be a moment!! Laughable. There has to be some event where the security services (or whoever) can say the terrorist attacked 'x' or 'y' because it said this or that in one of the released documents. They can't because it hasn't happened not because it couldn't.
"Saddam admitted he was claiming to have WMDs as a way to keep the Iranians at bay."
So, we now wage war and kills hundreds of thousands on the basis of what one man says? Let's not bother checking it's credible. Let's just take them at their word and go straight in. After all, why would you expect intelligence agencies to be able to work out that someones bluffing and get to the truth!! Might as well just watch the news and believe everything anybody says. (By the way, I'm insulting the British as well as the American intelligence agencies here).
"Saddam was amazed that the US fell for it, but that's another topic for discussion. Saddam's admittance was never widely publicized."
I suspect they probably knew he was lying, but it was a case of finishing told business. We all know General S was asked to go to Baghdad, but refused.
"It goes beyond harassing someone. They had credible intelligence that he was the mule aka courier."
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe they just picked him up because he was the blokes boyfriend. That's not exactly intelligence or just cause though.
Re: @ Mad Mike ... @AC
@Ian Michael Gumby.
It's amazing just how far 'US' history varies from the rest of the world.
"Without the Americans, you had Dunkirk. What does that tell you."
Well, the Americans had Pearl Harbour!! What a great victory that was!! Everyone had successes and failures. So what.
"With out the Americans, you lacked the resources for the long haul. So too did Germany."
If we both lacked the resources, then it would have stopped at a stalemate!! Sounds like you're suggesting the Americans added resources and therefore extended it!!
"Germany could have taken Europe and held it, except that he couldn't also contain the Russians."
Maybe. Certainly opening up the eastern front was a mistake. However, whether Germany could have taken the UK is a question. Of course, once Europe was taken, he might have been able to then take on the Russians.
"1) You would need a 4 engine bomber from Europe to strike at the Eastern Seaboard of the US. Germany built 2 engine bombers to strike closer targets."
In general true. However, I'm sure 4 engined bombers wouldn't have been beyond their ability when they had a need. After all, they were well ahead of anyone else in many areas of science and technology....e.g. V2.
"2) US had all the raw materials needed to produce weapons as well as factories across the nation."
Due to the 'empire', the UK potentially had more raw materials and factories all over the world etc. We could also call on soldiers from other countries as well.
"3) Man power. Yes, we were fighting on two fronts. Bailing the British Empire out on both sides of the world. Didn't see the Brits bombing Tokyo. Did I miss something?"
Didn't see the Americans fighting in North Africa either. Did I miss something? Again, like everything else, it made sense for countries to do what they could, where they could. By saying 'Bailing the British Empire out', you are simply justifying my earlier comments about pompous, patronising Americans. Yes, America fought in both Europe and the Pacific, but so did the British. We had a huge number of troops in the Pacfic theatre as well. At least we didn't manage to loose a large amount of our fleet at Pearl!!
"If we want to look at British victories? El Alamein. That was the most strategic victories and the only one where you can give sole credit to the Brits. Note that I don't include the air battle over Britain, but I guess I should include it."
And I guess there are far more American victories where you can give sole credit to the Americans? Not really. It was a joint effort by many countries in almost all battles.
"In terms of the 'tank', Lancelot de Mole was an Australian. And of course the British Government shot him down repeatedly too. "
And? Most of your space programme was based on a certain German, but you'll still take credit for it!!
"Ooops! (I'd love to do this all day... but I have a day job.)"
You surprise me.
" I just started poking fun of the Brit who posted how thanks to them, they saved the scientists who were responsible for the bomb."
I don't think they said this. They said some of the scientists were British (and other nationalities). In other words, not all American. And how exactly were they saved? As far as I know (and you've said as much), they were mostly working in America at the time.
Re: @ I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects A stunning lack of history
@Ian Michael Gumby.
You really lack an understanding of the world history. What do they teach you in school these days?"
Well, I was taught to be able to read, write and talk in english, whereas it's quite clear from your first sentence that you weren't!!
"The Lend Lease act allowed the American Government to purchase munitions and arms and give them to the Brits and Allies so that they could hold off the Germans. If this didn't happen... Germany could have invaded the UK."
So, you mean the USA saw a money making opportunity and took it rather than actually coming over and helping to defend us. 'Gave them to the Brits'? Rubbish. As the name suggests, we actually paid for them and were doing so for many decades after the end of WWII.
"The jet engine was a 'simultaneous' discover between a Brit and an Italian. With the Brit's engine a better design. The British government shot down his idea..."
Strangely, the first patent for a gas turbine to power an aircraft was taken out by a Frenchman in 1921, a full 7 years before Whittle presented his ideas to his superiors.
"The real invention that helped save the day was the Turbocharged Rolls engine that they mated with the P-51 Mustang."
The Rolls Royce Merlin (and other derivatives) certainly did a lot as well. No question of that. If a film ever comes out of Hollywood on its creation and use, I'm sure it will have been renamed the Pratt and Whitney Merlin or some other US company. After all, can't pretend the US hasn't invented everything. You do seem to have bypassed the total lie presented by Hollywood in claiming an American got the first Enigma.
"The point was that if the UK surrendered to Germany, you wouldn't have rescued anyone... Also my point was that the bulk of the scientists who were involved in the bomb project were already in the US prior to the start of WWII."
And if the UK had surrendered to Germany, how long would it have been before the US did? Would the US have held out against both Germany and Japan? Anyway, if you'd actually read anything about WWII, you would know that the UK had no intention of ever surrendering. Germany would have had to invade and subdue and plans were in place to prevent a successful invasion and wage a covert war for years if it did happen. You only have to research the area between the south coast and London to see all the defences in place and how they would have been used to prevent an invasion.
@ Ian Michael Gumby
"You do realize without the US and the lend lease act... you would haven't had the opportunity to 'rescue' scientists not to mention that many were already living in the US."
Ah yes. The usual tripe from Americans over how they saved the world during WWII. Why don't you mention WWI and claim all the glory there as well? If Britain had fallen during WWII, it is very questionable as to whether the USA could have held out against the might of Germany and Japan together. I hate to p**s on your usual American parade, but the USA didn't defeat anyone alone. There were a considerable number of non-American (as in British and Commonwealth) troops fighting in all theatres of the war and it was the COMBINED efforts of all that won the war, not the USA alone.
I realise that Hollywood (amongst others) love to claim every single thing was achieved by the USA (capture of an Enigma machine for instance), but large chunks of it are actually fantasy. One of the reasons why the USA is hated over large areas of the world, is the self-righteous, overbearing attitude of some of its inhabitants and the way they try to lord it over everybody. Someday they will grow up enough to realise this isn't doing them any favours.
"You do remember that little science project going on under the bleachers at the University of Chicago?"
Yes indeed. However, that was quite a long way removed from a working atom bomb, hence the Manhattan project. Many countries contributed to that project in all sorts of ways with all sorts of knowledge. Chances are, it would have happened a lot later if only the USA had been involved. By the way, why do you think it was based on the USA?
"The one contribution that the UK could have made was the jet engine back in the late 30's.
Oh wait. British Government shot that one down."
Given what happened on the battle fields of Europe especially, I would have thought the development of the tank was a pretty big contribution from the UK. In fact, if you read up about it, the USA used British and French tanks during WWI!!
Re: dogged Not quite the same @Mad Mike
"Miranda was knowingly carrying copies of restricted material through British territory, having demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosue"
How exactly has he demonstrated his intent to be a party to its disclosure? Can they even prove he knew what he was carrying? Maybe he was just carrying something for his boyfriend and didn't know what it was? Did he cooperate fully with the police? As far as we know.
You're claiming all sorts of things without actually being able to prove them. Just because you want to believe all sorts of things, doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't mean the police could prove it.
Re: @That terrorist "Ian Michael Gumby"
@ Ian Michael Gumby
"But taking and disseminating classified documents which hurt the national security of the country?"
Ah, but therein lies the problem. Whilst there's been a good deal of bluster and claims, there has yet to be a single example of where the revelations have actually hurt the national security of either the USA or GB. Maybe if they could come up with some examples, it might wash more, but simply claiming it doesn't count. After all, they could claim anything.
This has nothing to do with national security and never has. It has everything to do with secret organisations having the extent of their illegal acts revealed, along with the politicians that have at minimum allowed them to do it, and sometimes were actually complicit.
It's simply trying to get back at people who have rightly embarrassed them as they desperately needed embarrassing.
And people wonder why politicians (and others) are held in such contempt. Because they have clearly shown time and time again, that they do not believe the rule of law applies to them, even though they create the laws!!
Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike
"You may be aware that the act doesn't need to be signed .... you didn't seem to be aware that it also does apply to people who haven't worked for the government."
I don't recall ever saying it didn't.
You don't seem to have answered a very major point, which is you have no evidence he didn't disclose when asked. Possession of material covered under the OSA is NOT an offence as otherwise, if someone found some at say a rubbish tip, they couldn't return it, as they would be committing an offence holding it!! That's why the OSA deals with what you DO with it, not mere possession.
And the funny thing is, he was actually allowed to go on his way rather than being charged with anything, let alone a crime under the OSA, which you seem to erroneously think he has committed and provided no evidence of. If he had, he would have been arrested and prosecuted as prescribed by the law. So, the police by letting him go are effectively admitting they had no evidence he had broken any laws, let alone the OSA!!
In your haste to support the action, you're casting around for excuses to denigrate him, whilst the police released him WITHOUT charge. Therefore, the police themselves disagree with you!!
Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike
"Umm, no. It seems people are gently trying to step over the fact that he was knowingly carrying information which was a. not his to start with, b. very obviously was government level classified and c. was not given to him as part of any government work. In other words, he was carrying contraband, just digital (even if you leave the "national security stuff" out of the picture, it clearly was the result of theft).
An arrest based on a suspicion is perfectly acceptable for the purpose for investigation (probable cause principle), secondly, this arrest proved the initial suspicion to be correct and so the whole show moved into "being caught in the act" stage. That is concerned classified material just adds some sauce to it. There is no duress here - nobody forced him to carry that data, and there is nobody in the world who will believe him if he would say he didn't know what information he was carrying."
As I have pointed out in another reply, the Official Secrets Act generally does not make possession an offence, but the act of disclosure is. Therefore, simple possession of the data probably isn't illegal in this act, although could be in others......e.g. spying. The duress comes in that the police made his disclose it to them. Therefore, the duress is what made him break the act i.e. forcing disclosure. It has nothing to do with carrying the classified material as that is not an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
Re: Not quite the same
"You don't have to sign the official secrets act to be bound by it. We all are. Besides, your justification could be equally applicable to a spy who didn't steal the information himself, is not British, and just happens to be carrying some secret files."
You notice that I never said you did anywhere in my post. You will also notice that I said spying laws would probably be more applicable.
"You knowingly bring stolen British Intelligence files into the UK, you're going to be arrested. He's lucky he wasn't charged with spying in my book."
Which I did say.
"I also don't understand Greenwalds whining about the British Empire. The British Empire is famous for many things, but holding journalists and restricting the press aren't things that spring to my mind. America on the other hand...."
I think you'll find there are the mechanisms in place to constrain the press and they have pretty similar scope to those in the USA. They may not have been used much to date, but as recent events show, their use is escalating more than somewhat.
Re: Not quite the same @Mad Mike
Let's look at each bit you've posted.
5.2 Did he disclose it? No. Not willingly anyway. Possibly when threatened by the police.
5.6 Two defences. Firstly, he didn't disclose. Secondly, it didn't come into his possession because of a breach of the Act. It came from the NSA and it was willingly given to them. So, it came into his possession possibly through a breach of an American law, not a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
6.2 Again, no disclosure.
8.4 Was he asked to return it? No. Did he get it from a Crown servant or government contractor? No.
8.5 Was he officially asked to return it? No. Therefore he can't have failed to return it.
8.6 Again, no disclosure.
So, he hasn't breached the Official Secrets Act in any way. He hasn't breached any of the sections you've highlighted, largely because they never actually asked to him to do anything (such as return it) and instead turned into the Stasi and escalated the situation potentially without need.
I am quite aware the act doesn't need to be signed, hence my use of quotes around it. The act of 'signing' is simply making sure a person is explicitly aware.
Re: Not quite the same @dogged
"The Act Itself applies however regardless."
I've read it (on GOV.UK) and not that I can see, unless you are employed in one of the listed categories, which he wasn't. So, the Act doesn't apply to him. In fact, the Act specifically says you have to be informed previously that the Act applies to you. Don't think he was!!
Re: Not quite the same @Richard Tyler
I suggest you read the Official Secrets Act.
You either have to be (or have been) employed in various jobs associated with secrets (e.g. military, intelligence agencies, contractor etc.) or have specifically been advised by a suitable authority in advance (hence the idea of 'signing' the Act). As he fits into neither category, I don't really see how this Act applies. It's more likely that some sort of Spying offence would have been carried out, especially as he was a foreign national.
Re: @ Mad Mike
Right, so George Zimmerman was prosecuted. Yep. Was he found guilty? Not that I'm aware of. So............ You can prosecute as many people as you like, but unless you start finding them guilty........
I was definitely a bit flip about saying 'anyone you like', but the law is considerably on the side of the person as you say, Standing Their Ground. The reality is that people have either not been charged, or charged and acquitted, for actions that in most other civilised countries around the world would have resulted in custodial sentences. Try doing anything even approaching what goes on in the US and you'll be charged and most likely found guilty.
The Stand Your Ground laws are rather stupid anyway. Anyone who does martial arts knows that a fight avoided is a fight won. After all, is it more sensible to get yourself out of the situation (maybe by simply running away), or to start a firefight with someone? One means you live, the other........well maybe not.
Re: @ Mad Mike
It's happened in Florida at least to my knowledge. There was a lot of trouble over it. The article I read also said it was legal in other states as well, although it didn't mention which ones to my knowledge. I believe you had to say you felt threatened and you believed the person was 'up to no good' and even feel your life might be at risk, but it didn't actually have to be true. There have been numerous cases in the press over this.
Re: Standard response:
Yep. Perfectly legal (in some places at least) to shoot anyone you don't like on your land, but have a rubber duck race with the miscreant and they'll throw the book at you.
Wonder how much of a problem it is. Will they need to build special, heavily fortified secure prison ponds for all the competitors.
Re: I am pleased
Isn't rubber duck racing tantamount to terrorism or some other heinous offence?
I'm surprised they didn't use data from NSA mobile phone intercepts to carry out a drone strike on one of the venues and take out these terrorists threatening the 'American Way of Life'...............
The USA really needs to stop much of its 'intervention' around the world and instead spend more time trying not to look silly......
I have to admit, I thought so what when I read this. Whilst all charitable giving is good, why should they get particular credit for giving away what they will never miss? Let's be honest here. These guys are not giving away sums of money that will change their lives or mean they have to change how they live. Compare this to people who make a decision to give a fixed percentage (say 10% is common) of their income to charity? In most cases, they make lifestyle choices to be able to do this. I would say they require far more credit for that. Also, look who he's giving it to. I can think of far better targets for the money.
A persons philanthropy should be measured not absolutely, but relative to them and their income/assets etc. On that basis, The Zuckerbergs would slide massively down the rankings.
Re: Some things I know, many things I don't
If you read my post, I compared my comment of paying subsidies for knocking down old houses and building new, to paying a subsidy for scrapping old cars and building new.
So, your first point applies to car srappage as well. Equally, so does your second point. Third point doesn't really. The other advantage though, is that it will stimulate the economy as well as infrastructure investment.
Re: Some things I know, many things I don't
"If there is that much shale gas then it needs to be banned, or else we'll face CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossing 2000ppm."
Quite possibly. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no climate model can yet predict what that will actually mean to any degree of certainty. That's largely because no climate model has yet predicted anything that has come to pass!!
That's not to say this might not be a problem, but we have no idea how much of a problem it could be. So, saying this is a problem and must be stopped at all costs is just as silly as saying it isn't a problem. Hence, we should do what we can to reduce emissions whilst ensuring the impact is not devastating on people. This includes keeping power at a reasonable price to enable people to heat their homes.
One thing I've never understood is that newer homes are far more energy efficient than older ones. Even after making all the energy saving changes you can, they rarely come to modern standards. Why then, doesn't the government offer incentives to knock down old homes and replace them with new? I know it happens to an extent naturally, but this is exactly the same sort of idea as paying someone to scrap their old car and buy a newer one; just on a larger scale.
Re: Your move
@AC Agree totally.
We know enough to say that pouring emissions (of any type) into the atmosphere (probably anywhere) is not a good idea. No problem there. We also have the issue of trying to conserve a finite resource we still need. There are lots of good reasons to try and not use carbon based fuels for heating etc.
However, here's the rub. Making changes and reducing emissions is fine to a point, but we're faced with a problem. Firstly, there are plenty of people around who want drastic emissions regardless of what others do and almost regardless of cost. This is silly. We need to reduce emissions where practical, but not to the point of thousands of pensioners dying of cold over winter. Some of this is political and taxation as well to maybe give them more money. However, we can't possibly do everything and we also need to get worldwide support. Without including big (relatively) emitters, anything the UK does is irrelevant, but might cause us huge economic issues.
We also have a major problem with people looking too short term. We've rushed at technologies because we have a decent understanding of them now, whereas if we invested in research for a few years, we might get a much better solution in the long run. Sometimes, doing nothing for a few years and then investing will yield a much better return that building immediately. A good example of this is wind turbines. We basically had the technology worked out very early on, but they're actually a really bad way of generating electricity for a whole host of reasons. But, we've invested massively in them and ignored what probably are much better solutions. We've created economic environments where you're better off investing in wind farms than trying to develop a much better solution. e.g. tidal and wave.
Finally, we have to realise this is a tradeoff situation. The Severn barrage may or may not be a good idea. However, if it makes sense in every other way, we might just have to put up with the environmental changes it will make upstream and the damage to habitats. We're in a situation where every solution has at least one downside, yet all the eco warriors insist you do something, but then object to just about every possibly solution. Well, we're just going to have to choose the lesser of two evils unless we want to go back to the caves and subsistence farming, which isn't going to happen. Sometimes there is no perfect answer and a lot of the eco people need to realise this. Often, it's simply picking the option that causes least damage rather than no damage at all.
After all, the very existence of every single person affects the environment in some, very tiny way.
Would you really want to fly in a helicopter with critical components setup to self-destruct on a RF signal? Sounds quite dodgy to me. You really don't want that going off at the wrong time!!
I thought most of the important, classified stuff on the helicopter wasn't really around the electronics fit, but more the design, stealth materials etc. None of that would be destroyed by this.
Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science
This talks about during the last 4 ice ages only. You can see changes of at least the same magnitude. You can also see concentrations higher. Bear in mind, this is only the last 425,000 years as well, which is the blink of an eye in geological terms.
I think the title of this link says it all as well.
15,000,000 years is again, the blink of an eye.
Re: I call bullshit mr AC
Supporters of MMGW using weather over the last 100 years to claim it must be so. Normally, these are the first people to scream insults at deniers when they claim weather is showing it ISN'T happening. Don't you know the difference between weather and climate?
Condescension is generally man made by the person with the least knowledge of the subject.
Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science
"No it isn't - there are a few whackos left that still deny it - and they get more than their fair share of airtime..."
Calling people wackos is a form of suppression. It is suppression through insult. Normally performed by those who can't actually create a valid case to argue.
"Hundreds of solutions have been proposed. Numerous scientific papers suggest potential solutions and mitigations."
All of which have one basic tenet.......reduce atmospheric CO2. So, ultimately, whilst the method of doing this is different, the same basic solution exists.
"Raw data is meaningless without context and analysis. Raw data is not 'suppressed' more than in any other scientific field."
Absolutely it is. There have been numerous cases where scientists and institutes have refused to release the raw data or give any clue on how they are 'correcting' the data. What possible harm could come of releasing this information, yet it is routinely not being done by scientists. Are we supposed to just trust that their oh so gargantuan brains have done the correcting right?
"Only by climate change deniers. Not scientists."
Absolute rubbish. Most of the time we never know how the data is being 'corrected' (this is manipulation anyway!!) and therefore cannot know why or if done correctly. The University of East Anglia especially has been found out doing some very dodgy things. How the same published data changes over the years is also most odd.
"How long is a piece of string? It varies. They are frequently tested - for instance against historical data."
Anybody can make the data fit historical data. The real way to test theories etc. is to predict something that comes true. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and predicting what has already happened is a remarkably simple thing.
"I think we are doing our best, but a few die hard climate change deniers hold on to their outdated views...The scientific concensus is already pretty much universal."
What's this got to do with finding more people who obey normal scientific process and don't adjust their data to fit the next paycheck?
"Welcome to the 21st Century - it doesn't seem like you have quite caught up yet... There are various cycles that explain the current situation. The current lack of Sun Spot activity might for instance mean that we are heading for a mini ice age. This does not change the fact that versus other variables, we are currently warming the planet at a geologically incredibly fast rate, and that even if we did experience such a cold snap - once the Sun returned to normal activity, global warming would also return wtih a vengance..."
Cycles that were not predicted or explained by any previous theory!! You've just undermined your own case. You've just identified an outside influence which could have a huge effect (as you've explained) that isn't even taken into account by most theories!! We are currently warming the planet as a geologically incredibly fast rate? Absolute rubbish. There have been many point in geological history where CO2 levels have been higher and lower. Also where the rate of change has been much more abrupt. The same applies to temperatures. You've obviously swallowed all the propaganda and not looked into geological history and how extreme and swift some changes have been.
"What has running out of money got to do with it? Or did you mean 'broken' but are poorly educated?"
If we don't work out what's "broken" and why it is, we will be "broke"!! Sending the UK to the bottom of the world poverty table all by itself isn't going to help save the planet. Individual action isn't good enough here, it must be concerted, global action if we're to have an effect (should we need to).
By the way, I'm neither an advocate or denier of global warming, whether manmade or not. I accept that things are changing, but that's the nature of things like geology and weather and climate.....it doesn't change. What I do know is at thinking everything should remain exactly as is and just nice and wonderful for us humans is stupid and won't ever happen. Whether mankind is doing it or some natural process is to a large extent irrelevant. Mankind has to learn that keeping everything the same is never going to happen and would be stupidly expensive to even attempt. What we need to do, is learn to move with it. In this respect even ancient man was far more intelligent. If the seas rise, move inland. If they drop, move out. If one part of the world gets too hotter, move somewhere else. It's only the stupidities of mankind with politics etc.etc. that makes this difficult.
I thought this was already happening. The categories being blocked have already started being widened.
Re: Rats in a sack
Personally, I would prefer if they did fight amongst themselves. Preferably with sharp bladed weapons. That's the only reason I would watch the Parliament channel.
Re: It is time for people to stop moaning about climate change and look at ways to live with it!
Given the amount of money being spent on avoiding climate change, the tax levies and the money spent on climate scientists, we probably have enough. If we were to go even part way along the path climate scientists are trying to steer us, we would have enough many times over.
When faced with an immovable large object, it is normally better to learn to live with it than try and move it.
Over the many thousands of years mankind (and his predecessors) have been around, one thing has been consistently shown. Don't try to change massive forces such as nature, simply go with them. If an area starts getting swamped, simply move people elsewhere. The evidence of this is all around the globe, including cities off the coasts of land masses etc. It's actually cheaper and easier. It's only really over the last hundred or so years that mankind has let his ego take over and decided to take on nature at her own game. This can only end one way.
We're now trying to fight nature rather than moving with her and unless we have some enormous technical advances, we are certain to loose.
Re: Appeal to authority
Y2K is a great example.
The reality is that the problem did exist in some places, but was blown up out of proportion and a load of people (me included :-) ) made a lot of money out of it. Just as it was blown out of proportion by some, it was also derided as a con after the fact by those who wanted to see carnage and failures galore. It was really a no win situation. If it happened, you would be torn apart for allowing it to happen; if it didn't, you were accused of hysteria etc. and profiteering. The reality was somewhere in the middle.
Same is probably true for climate change. Some is probably quite normal and not impacted by man. Some is probably caused by man. A mixture of the two. Unfortunately, the situation is actually worse than Y2K as nobody really knows the truth. In Y2K, people could work out what the truth was and where the problems were etc.
In climate change, nobody really has any real understanding at the moment, so after the event, it'll be even more of a bun fight. Did the measures actually prevent it, so good one to the climate scientists. Alternatively, were they simply making it all up? Similarly, if it does happen, were they wrong and it would have happened regardless, or have they mitigated the effect at least. Unless you have a baseline (which we don't), nobody will ever know.
Re: How commentards do science: word analysis on a writeup by El Reg
The thing that I find interesting about all this is that the PIG doesn't seem to be following other climate change trends. For instance. You might think that rising world temperatures would cause the ice to melt and increase the shed rate. Fair enough. Seems logical. However, this increase has happened when even the most ardent warmist has agreed no warming has been occuring. So, what is causing it? Presumably they must know as otherwise, how do they know it will increase etc.etc. as stated in the article.
To me, this piece of information just increases my impression that scientists don't really have much of a clue what's going on and why.
Re: the long way
Seems like some taxi companies in your area have come into the 20th century. Wish they were all like this.
Your comment about the drunk girl being assaulted is very valid. However, it's her choice. If she uses a Taxi and believes this gives her safety as the drivers have been vetted etc., then fine. If she chooses a minicab (or whatever) and decides to waive those checks, that's her choice also. If she gets assaulted as a result, that is the risk she took. It doesn't make her any less a victim or make it her fault, but if she knowingly took a riskier option, that's her choice.
We can either live in a country where everybody is told exactly what to do when and how and the state takes all responsibility, or one where people have choice. However, in the latter case, people must also take responsibility for their choices and the good and bad that comes out of them. Too often we see people take chances or act stupidly and then complain when something bad happens.
It's a difficult balancing act, but in this case, it looks like taxi drivers in Paris trying to use the system to remove a competitor.
Re: circumventing the heavily regulated systems
This really is simply spite. Just like many other areas of the business world, their business model needs to adapt to the new world. Whilst they are regulated, this is simply part of their business model. So, people have a choice. Take a taxi and get all the benefits you've listed above about cleanliness, well maintained etc.etc. Or, use an alternative service and take their chances. It's up to the customer!!
Should customers be forced to use one option over the other? Personally, I think it's up to them. You pays your money and takes your chance. If you choose to use a lower (for whatever reason) service, then you take more of a chance. Your choice. So, the legislation that requires a 15 minute wait between booking and pickup is simply protectionism.
It's much like minicabs and taxis in the UK. Regulated differently and you can choose. Personally, I've found not a lot of difference. They both have good and bad. Some minicab drivers are excellent with decent cars and some taxi drivers are appalling thieves with rubbish cars. Also, the other way round.
Re: If you drink alcohol you should not drive
I do agree that people who drink and drive are low life. However, it is still the responsibility of those tasked with dealing with this, to do so within the confines of the law. Once proven guilty in a court of law, name them, shame them, lock them up. No issue. If people screw up the case and they get off on technicalities, that's the fault of those responsible for doing it right. Incompetence in the police, CPS etc. is not a reason to simply bypass part of the criminal justice system and move from charging to sentence without the need to find them guilty first.
You can call it whatever you like, but it's still a not guilty. Also, police procedure is not necessarily legal mumbo jumbo. Procedure is generally there for a reason. For instance; was the whole procedure of extracting and testing the blood sample witnessed and signed for by two people? This is to try and ensure people aren't 'fitted up'. Not saying non-compliance always means innocent (it may just be a cock up), but the procedure is there to ensure the evidence and evidential chain is good, to try and ensure some of the more dubious practices of the past (think of Met in the 70s) don't occur.
So, I do agree that sometimes the person is guilty as sin and has got away on a technicality. However, on other occasions, the police procedure (or failure to adhere to it) has saved them from a miscarriage of justice.
Re: Dodgy cops?
Especially when 'will be found guilty' becomes 'may be found guilty'. Plenty of prosecutions fail. Just look at the court stats.
Re: Dodgy cops?
There is no such thing as an 'open and shut case'. People get found not guilty for all sorts of reasons, including incorrect certification of technical apparatus, incorrect police procedure, mitigating circumstances.
If you could be bothered to look back through court proceedings, you would be amazed how many people are found innocent once charged, even for offences such as this.
I named several in my posting. Firstly, does the machine have a correct and valid certification certificate? No. Not guilty. Secondly, I know someone who was found not guilty of drink driving as he was attempting to escape an attacked with a hammer. Thirdly, incorrect police procedure? Not guilty. So, there's three, all of which I mentioned before.
There is no such thing as an 'open and shut case'.
The funny thing about a civilised society is that everyone is required to follow the law, even the police. Therefore, if the law says this is wrong, it's wrong. Doesn't matter if it's the police or not. There are numerous ways in which someone can be found innocent of drink driving, even after blowing positive. Police procedure incompetently followed is a common one. Technical devices (i.e. speedos, breathalysers etc.etc.) all need regular calibration as set down in law. There are even circumstances when drink driving is actually allowed. I know someone who was found not guilty (even though he admitted being above the limit) of drink driving as he was only driving to escape an attacker!! The court said as he was under attack, he was entitled to try and get away!!
So, simply being charged with a crime is a million miles from being guilty of the crime. You only have to look at court stats to see how often prosecutions fail. There is no such thing as an open and shut case I'm afraid.
As to the victims of crime. I totally agree. Victims are generally badly treated, but the way to get round this is to ensure the police, CPS etc. do their jobs properly and effectively, not just to attack everyone charged with an offence. There is a reasonable argument that people should be anonymous until found guilty as people such as yourself use the excuse of 'no smoke without fire' to justify persecuting people on the groups of charges rather than convictions. The classic one is kiddie fiddling. Doesn't matter what the court says, whether the charges are proven (or in some cases laughed out of court), you're tarnished for life and will never get away from it. Men have been charged with rape and had their lives made hell, even though the woman was found to have lied and made the allegation up.
The law is not perfect, but simply treating everyone charged as guilty is heading towards a Judge Dredd state. Why bother with the court case? After all, they've been charged, they must be guilty!!
Re: Bomb us back to the stone age please
Maybe I should have attached the right icon to my posting, but I wasn't actually being serious. It's true that technology moves forward much faster during wartime and you only have to look at those during the 20th century to see that. It's for many reasons, but all based around need.
That's not to say I think the needless slaughter because two politicians (often) can't agree on something is worth it.
Re: Bomb us back to the stone age please
Many of the changes that came about during and after the wars were a direct result of them. Medicine surged forward due to the injuries suffered by combatants. This is even happening today with big advances in artificial limbs due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Transport surges forward due to the need to keep troops supplied, make 'better' bombers, fighters, tanks etc.etc. Agriculture moves forward due to the need to feed everyone... etc.etc.
So, if you want to move technology forward, a good war is a start!!
Re: Bomb us back to the stone age please
"what should have happened with pensions is contribution levels should have slowly increased over the last 40 years and the retirement age should have been gradually increased. "
I agree totally. As contribution rates cannot increase forever upwards, people simply have to accept that retirement years cannot continue upwards forever. There is a maximum ratio between work years and retirement years. The problem was obvious decades ago (as you say), but short-sighted politicians could ignore it for their careers, so why deal with giving the bad news!! Now, we've got to the point where we have to face it, but are still doing too little, too late.
The desire to be a politician should prevent you from ever being one......
Re: one small problem : "both halves of the debate"
I'm afraid you're doing it again!!
'which theory is considered right'!! So, it's considered right, but actually that is based solely on the number of people believing it. Therefore, you're happy to 'believe' something based on no experimental evidence at all?
Scientists work in Sigmas (effectively probability of being right). No climate science has passed even the lowest levels of this let alone levels required to be considered 'right' and therefore fact. If you were to talk with physicists about the sigma levels achieved by climate science, they would laugh you out the room. Climate science is constantly being sold as 'fact', but it hasn't even reached the sigma levels to even be probable let alone anywhere near 'fact'.
Until all these scientists you speak of can get it somewhere near 5-Sigma, everything they say is at best a guess. It doesn't matter how many of them there are, it's still a guess.
Same applies to the antis as well of course. Their science is no better, so again, they're guessing.
And all this means, we don't really know what's happening and from that, what will happen.
The consensus can be as large as you like, but until they get to 3,4 or 5-Sigma, claiming anything simply makes them bad scientists.
Re: Bomb us back to the stone age please
The problem isn't so much your parents, but the lies that have been perpetrated by decades of politicians. Towards the beginning of the 20th century, you would have been unlikely to have a retirement unless you were very wealthy and lucky (as in living that long!!). Then, more people reach retirement age and had a few years (as in maybe a max of 5). This was potentially sustainable. Reaching the current day, people have been told by the politicians that they should have a retirement and it should generally be pretty long. Given average retirement age now, something like 20 years.
This whole lie that's been told us by politicians has resulted in two things. Firstly, a great strain on taxes and pension funds (whether private or public etc.) in how to fund these non-productive people. Secondly, a lot of people using resources without producing any real, significant output. Both of these issues will have to be faced one day. The former has been half-heartedly tackled by the latest government, although the measures are nowhere near extreme enough. The latter has been swept under the carpet by everyone.
We simply have to realise that either no retirement or a few years at best (5 years max) is probably the best anyone can reasonably have. The days of 20 year (or more) retirements were delusional. Trying to get the general population to understand this, is going to be some task!!
- Does Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked