149 posts • joined Thursday 9th August 2012 10:15 GMT
What world do you live in? Start what kind of buisness? There's been no real nvestment in training and education for decades. F.E. colleges no longer teach anything that isn't government approved -- funding is dependeant on the teaching being government approved; H.E. is just about in the same boat. Innovative and creative thinking isn't something you create from a spreadsheet mentality.
Start a business? How? Credit and investment has been cut off due to the need to recapitalise the banks; all that so-called quantative easing wasn't to make investment easier, it was to stop the banks from defaulting on their own debts.
What world do I live in? A world where people have the capacity to train themselves or find unconventional ways to get trained. I also live in a world where it is possible and actually quite doable - I have done it - to start a business with zero money from the bank and negligable capital.
1. Fought to liberate the Falklands.
It was a war brought about by her government's stupidity. Goodness knows what the future is going to bring now that her political descendants have neutered this country's armed forces. Oh, btw, I am an ex-squaddy, so I think I might be better qualified than most commentards on this issue.
I agree more should be spent on the Armed Forces. But not really relevent to Thatcher.
2. Crushed the unions, who were really asking for a whooping throughout the 70s.
Really? So the owners and management of companies of that era are entirely without any balme or fault?
Nope, never said that. But the unions were running the country more or less. Something had to be done. I'm guessing you think the 70s was a great decade for Britain?
I still find it hard to understand why people hate Thatcher so much.
She did crush the unions, and for that I thank her. I don't see why I should subsidize miners working a pointless job. Still, 30 years later, they're still on the news moaning about how Thatcher ruined their lives. FFS, it was 30 years ago. Get a new job, start a business, move towns, do something productive, but stop whinging about the only PM who had the balls to stand up to you.
I don't think she was a great PM but she did two great things:
1. Fought to liberate the Falklands.
2. Crushed the unions, who were really asking for a whooping throughout the 70s.
Why is Peter Jones a "bad boy"? From the few DD shows I've watched he isn't ruder than the other business people. He's just a little bit blunt with people with silly ideas. It's not as if he's bit the head off a bat or anything.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Even if nothing in climate prompts it, there is every chance an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions will be made in coming years.
You really think that? Not in a million years. You think China and India, which are slowly dragging their people out of poverty are going to voluntarily push them back, with co2 limits? Come on even the EU is starting to fudge its CO2 limiting programs with credits for energy intensive industries (i.e. the backbone of the economy). The most they will come up with at any conference is a mealy mouthed agreement to agree something at the next conference. And since we are in Obama's second term, and the political pendulum will almost certainly swing back to the republicans at the next election, the agreement would need to happen in the next 4 years.
An international agreement to put an international price on carbon emissions, or to start locking up undeveloped fields. So far talks have been blocked by bickering and difficulties of negotiating such an agreement, as well as being hindered by special interests who wish to water down or block any potential solution.
The bickering is that nobody wants to cut their co2 emissions, and apart from the EU, will not commit economic suicide unless everyone else does too. And the "special interests" are actually you and me, people who want steady supplies of electricity, central heating, jobs and food.
Come on, the Rio conference was a joke, a big fall from the grand, do-or-die drama of Copenhagen. IIRC most major leaders didn't bother showing up, just sent some negotiators into the mix.
Having to sharply ditch fossil fuels, rather than gradually. The solutions governments will reach for - and which populations will accept - in this situation will be based on hysteria rather than reason. Much like the hysteria that followed 9/11 led to two wars and a clamp down on various freedoms. The other problem is the inertia of the climate. Expect nations to embark together on absolutely mad solutions at this point to make up for lost ground such as unstable geo-engineering schemes.
Sounds fun, can't wait to read the novelization of this story.
Re: BEST - warmist?
2) [Solution to climate change requires] large scale deindustrialization of society.
What solution do you know of that doesn't require deindustrialization?
#1 is true of a lot of genuine longterm threats that should be acted upon (eg global pandemic or asteroid strike) and so I am unclear what you want #1 to tell me. It can't mean the theat isn't genuine or shouldn't be acted upon, else I would have to accept nothing should be done about asteroids, etc either.
I'm telling you, that genuine or not the threat isn't being acted upon and won't be acted upon for the reasons I mentioned. My original point way back up the thread was that warmists have lost. This is what I am explaining to you. You can do with that information what you wish.
You raised #2 to single out climate change from the other longterm threats as being the reason not to act on it while acting on the others. #2 is a separate argument in it's own right. Argument #1 doesn't depend on it, so I am still left wondering what you think #1 should be telling me.
I am not singling out AGW over other threats. I'm telling you that nothing is going to happen. You use the word "act", as though there is some collective will of the people to do something about this problem. I am explaining to you that this will isn't there. As I said, nobody cares. That is my point.
I don't think is necessary for a great number of people to care about a subject in order for society to act on it. Nor do I think people will act in certain ways if they genuinely believe something should be done about longterm threat. That would require extraordinary focus given the distractions of day to day life.
A post-carbon world is inevitable so it better be possible.
I don't know who you think is going to act. CameronClegg's "Greenest government Eva!" is pretty ambivalent about the whole windmill thing, building loads of em and then letting Caudrilla drill for shale. Germany is getting worried about it's own renewable subsidies. All over the world the green bubble has popped. The political classes are losing their appetite to act (a lot of it is to do with no money in the coffers). So when you say "society should still act", I don't know who you are talking about. Generally people don't care, politicians are at most ambivalent. Who is supposed to do anything?
What do you really think will happen from here on? Of course there will be conferences the IPAA will vomit up a new report. But not much in the way of serious decarbonization will happen.
Oh and a post carbon world (well in the next couple of centuries anyway) is not inevitable. Good news today, the Japanese figured out a way to drill the sea bed for methane hydrates. :)
Happy reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9924836/Japan-cracks-seabed-ice-gas-in-dramatic-leap-for-global-energy.html
Re: The reality of global warming
To me it's risk assessment. What we gain by not crossing is the certainty of not getting hit by a truck and getting mangled. What we gain by crossing instead of taking a longer route round is making a few sacrifices.
What "few sacrifices" are these? The warmist industry want us to turn the clock back on industrial society.
Regardless of the veracity of the argument, to me it's not worth the risk of being hit by that truck, even if it's only 1% likely to occur. I'm sure that even the most belligerent of sceptics would assess that the chance of them being wrong could easily be 1% or more. Would you really get in a car with your entire family and drive it, knowing that there is a 1% chance of a fatal accident?
No not "regardless of the veracity of the argument". The veracity of the argument matters absolutely if you are doing a risk assessment, otherwise everything has a significant risk.
Regardless, your analogy is weakened slightly by the fact that you are explaining it while sitting in your own car driving alongside a convoy of trucks. Unless, of course, you have a tiny carbon footprint and use next to no fossil fuel powered appliances or machines, directly or indirectly? I'm guessing you use central heating or air conditioning, washing machines (not those old washboards), computers etc?
Lastly, your analogy leaves open the question of what not getting into the car entails? Does it entail bigger problems for me and my family (i.e. mass unemployment, power shortages, degradation of utilities etc?) Of course it does. Cutting back industrial civilization will mean unemployment, hunger, lower paid and menial jobs. Even the most belligerent warmist can see the problem.
A large portion of UK start ups all seem to be to do with music. As someone who doesn't care about music at all, I wish them all the best, but I really don't get it.
Recently looked back here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/16/the_top_25_uk_web_startups/ at some old startups from 6 years back. (About half the links are broken - it's like an elephant's graveyard of startups) and a lot of them, including Last.fm, are all to do with music.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Are you arguing that the importance of issues is determined only by a poll of what everyday people think?
Importance is a relative word.
No, this is not correct. Everyday people don't care about a lot of things - they are too busy to - but they expect their elected representatives to be on the ball and see dangers coming and avert them. Once something bad does happen the everyday people get very angry that nothing was done. Think the economic crisis. Or the horsemeat scandal, or even Jimmy Saville.
None of the examples you cites require the large scale deindustrialization of society, and the complete change in our lifestyles. If Warmists want to keep CO2 levels below whatever number they choose (is it still 400ppm?), everybody has to make a big effort. And that doesn't mean cycling to work and eating less meat (horse or cow), it probably means not having a job because there won't be any demand, because there won't be any industry. So when people don't care, they're hardly going to budge are they? The climate change conference circuit goes round in circles, because we have an unstoppable force (warmist crusading) up against an immovable object (most people and their politician's lack of desire to change their lifestyles). No matter how many conferences they have this won't change. WHich is why warmists have lost.
So you are essentially arguing that because disaster hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't. Or something. It isn't clear what you are trying to extrapolate from public opinion.
My point is that people don't care. And won't care, and you could say they don't care because their way of life depends on them not caring. And if people don't care, all these BEST reports and articles don't mean much. Nothing is changing. CO2 emissions are still going up after years of endless, futile conferences.
Another point I'd like to make is that people who profess to care don't, in my experience, actually care. (I mean groups like 350.org oh how was the arctic holiday guys?, etc, and Monbiot, and NASA's Hansen etc)Although I think they like to think of themselves as cassandras, whose warnings go unheeded but will be proved right in the end, to me they don't seem to be cutting back on their CO2 that much? You may think I'm being facetious but I'm not. If they truly believed this then they would go live in the woods or find some other way to get their carbon footprints to next-to-zero, set an example to the rest of us. In a post-carbon world when productivity and demand for consumer goods falls flat we need to know how we are supposed to survive. This isn't the 17th century - there's a lot more of us
. And yet Gore seems more interested on building his investment portfolio. Surely imminent doom will make his investments worthless. For that reason I can't believe a word that man says. That is why warmists are always trailed by the faint whiff of bull**** everywhere they go.
Re: Are you serious?
Have you actually USED a site "optimised" for mobile? They are universally awful, with restricted content and functionality. I always either switch back to the non-mobile site or to an app if there is one, and its a site I'll be spending a lot of tiem on.
Absolutely agree. Actually I can give an example: BusinessInsider.com 's mobile website is absolutely infuriating.
A list of headlines pop up, and if you scroll to the bottom there is a button to load more. If you keep loading more and more stories until you find one that might be interesting, and then click on the headline, read the story, go back to the home page, only the top stories are there and you have to reload and reload until you get back to where you were. Terrible design.
The Guardian's isn't that much better. I usually just click on the desktop site button.
Re: BEST - warmist?
You seem to be under some illusion that Climatologists are the only group putting forward AGW when in fact I am not aware of a single professional body of scientists or engineers who dispute AGW.
An example from the Institute of Civil Engineers: "The science is clear: Climate Change is a reality. Engineers must now be in engaged in responding to the challenges and threats which Climate Change poses to our built environment."
Irrelevant. How does this change anything I said. Everyday people, including everyday civil engineers don't give a crap. That's the bottom line. And what the professional body thinks and what its members think are two different things. If the Chartered Institute of Underwear Embroiderers want to take a stance on AGW I say go for it. Just don't expect the universe to care.
Do you honestly, hand on heart, think the general populace still care much about this topic?Here's a recent poll: http://www.globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2013/261-environmental-concerns-at-record-lows-global-poll.html It seems globally, interest in the movement is waning.
Even Google trends shows the path (OK, so not the most accurate indicator) is downward http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22global%20warming%22%2C%20%22climate%20change%22%2C%20&cmpt=q
Here's one recent Guardian article which is about as close as that paper has ever got to realizing what's happening: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/01/100-months-apocalypse-warnings
And I think there was another article on the register recently showing people don't care.
When I said the "deniers" have won, this is what I meant. Apathy reigns supreme. Now other environmentalist groups are starting to attack the AGW crowd, due to the latter's obsession with making everything run on wind power.
The scientific debate has passed into the realms of the abstract and archaic. It's the worst kind of Ivory Tower academia.
Everyday people just don't care. And that's the bottom line.
Re: BEST - warmist?
Beg to differ. The difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe kind of hugely matters.
But that's part of the issue here. What is this catastrophe? It's some far off, ill-defined forever morphing mixture of floods (which we've had since the dawn of time), hurricanes (ditto), sea level rise (still ditto). This far off never-happening catastrophe is part of why the AGW proponents are looked on suspiciously. While every "extreme" weather event apparently has the finger prints of Global Warming all over it, the lack of any defining catastrophic event means that the AGW proponents want us to hand our collective destiny over to them until they gaze into their crystal balls.. er.. models, and pronounce the danger averted.
For the past 20 years we've been deluged with horror stories about what will happen in the far off future. Just like a horror movie franchise it get's boring after a while, and starts to be a parody of itself.
You talk about this catastrophe with an ominous tone, but there is nothing ominous about it.
Although if you are saying that the deniers have no influence on world events, I beg to differ too. While impotent now, deniers did initially aid and abet the crippling of early international emission treaties, at a time when the West had enough influence to have pushed them through. Which has now left the West in an impotent position unable to influence the new big Eastern emitting countries.
I don't think "deniers" are impotent. I mean honestly, even if Obama had been idiotic enough to sign any agreement at Copenhagen which allowed China to get away without significant, or observable emission cuts, it would have never, ever have gotten through congress. It still won't. The issue is, I think both "denier" and "warmist" camps have lost followers, mainly due to apathy. Real people don't care (of course they'll say they are concerned if you ask them in a poll, just like you ask someone if they are concerned about BSE. They'll say "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah, I'm a little worried.". Of he goes to the supermarket to buy some steaks...).
Maybe it's just me, but in everyday life I don't know anyone who talks about this anymore. 2009 you could get articles on the front of the Telegraph website with scare stories. Now only the Guardian and the Independent (to its 2 or 3 readers) seem to bother. And even then it's mainly Monbiot's whinging. This is exactly how the "deniers" won. Let's face it. There was never and is never going to be a day when the climatology establishment does an about face and decides AGW isn't true. It just won't happen. What will happen is funding will dry up (let's see EU and US budgets in the next few years...), AGW proponent climatologists retire and/or lose their fire. There is always going to be some AGW proponents because the supposed problem is a never ending crisis.
Deniers have taken quite the gamble. I am afraid whether deniers win that gamble or not will not be dependent on whether the UK installs a few gas power stations, but what happens to the climate.
Not only the UK. Most major industrial countries. IMHO the biggest mistake by the environmentalists (I mean that in the general sense not AGW proponents - I actually support energy conservation, recycling and becoming energy independent) was to dismiss nuclear. If only they accepted it as a necessity in the event of a fossil fuel cutback, CO2 emissions could be much reduced by now. Oh well.
Re: BEST - warmist?
It's not the worst case of bias in the article, but BEST was started by a denier - they even got funding from the Kochs and a good write up from Anthony Watts! The BEST project analyzed as much data as it possibly could and concluded that there was no global conspiracy and the scientists got it right. Even the "zealots" are correct. They are not "warmists" they are scientists.
The BEST project hasn't changed anyone's mind. I think they finally got peer reviewed recently, but regardless, nobody in the real world cares (i.e. not in climatology). As much as people like to call anyone who doubts the "science" behind AGW as "deniers", it really doesn't matter - because we won. You just don't realize it yet. I'd give it a couple more years of wind and solar subsidies before govts start panicking, or reneging on deals (ala Germany, which pays hand over fist in its solar scam). Even the Cameron-Clegg "greenest govt ever", will be slapping up gas generators as quick as a flash once the UK's massive power problems become apparent.
Whether the "deniers" are wrong or not, it doesn't matter. Occasionally the obvious fact seems to slip through the AGW crowd, for example during the Copenhagen, Cancun, Rio climate conferences, where nothing whatsoever gets agreed, but the very next day we see in the Guardian the same old columnists telling us the next conference is the Big One - the last chance to save humanity. FFS Copenhagen was supposed to be the last chance. How many last chances do we get?
Please read this article and take a step back to see what a parody the AGW movement has become:
There are STILL people out there who won't accept reality?
We know Lewis Page is an ill informed zealot - about everything really, but even in the comment there is still idiocy.
Don't be so melodramatic. Of course the AGW scares are exaggerated. Almost nobody outside the echo chamber of the Guardian, realclimate and a fast diminishing circle of civil servants with public money to burn, believe this gibberish anymore.
We're screwed people, because of people like you. We have already guaranteed runaway with the warming that's baked in and the permafrost, methane releases. Hundreds of millions of people will die because you didn't want to take action two decades ago.
And you carbon footprint is...? Presumably you have excused yourself from industrial civilization and hunt for rabbits wearing a loin cloth? No. Didn't think so.
It's a sickness, to throw away human civilisation because you wanted your hummer.
Nobody is throwing away anything. We are just going through one of humanity's many fatalists, prophetic scares. It isn't the first. It won't be the last. I know a lot of people like to think of themselves as Noah, preparing for the deluge, but seriously, come down from your half-built ark and join the industrial debauchery. Churn out some CO2, turn on your PC... oh wait you already did.
Turning Award winner Edsger Dijkstra, who invented the Dijkstra search-graph algorithm for selecting the shortest point between two nodes..
Regarding the article, I don't know anyone who knows COBOL (or at least will admit to knowing it). I know a lot of well paid engineers, and almost all of them are C/C++, Java programmers.
If we are going to start picking pet languages to teach at university, I would like to propose Ada. Makes you write less buggy code.
Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.
Yes, but don't forget poor old Maldives, where the government has to hold cabinet meetings underwater, and people have to snorkel to work.
Well it seems to me they were making a loss before Google bought them: http://mediacenter.motorola.com/Press-Releases/Motorola-Mobility-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-Financial-Results-39c2.aspx
If Google has a vision for the company it is inveitable restructuring would be necessary. What are they supposed to do?
I can tell you for a fact that Google is laying off Motorola people because they mismanaged the (hardware) business 'cause don't understand hardware.
I really don't think you know for a fact that this is the case. And I doubt it is the case. If they need to restructure and pull out of non-profitable regions (Korea, India etc) then obviously people will need to be let go.
New UKIP slogan: "Save our Smut!"
Firing non-performing workers and/or making redundancies isn't evil by any means. It's far more evil to let the company grind on into bankruptcy - then everyone can lose their jobs.
It's a three per cent stake. They won't get a seat on the board for that, surely.
Sharp will still make screen for whoever will give them business, I imagine.
Re: Most people stay with their bank in the UK due to inertia.
I wasn't trying to get information to go cat burgling, I just wondered where he puts his money, since he empties his bank account every month. Either he goes on an extraordinary bender down the pub or he saves it somewhere that isn't a bank, i.e. bonds, stock market, both of which could have better returns than the paltry interest on a bank account, but with the downside of reduced liquidity.
Re: Fast travel = less ageing perhaps?
... almost light-speed...
Jumping into hyperspace is faster than light.
Movies. You're doing it wrong.
Why are they dragging old actors out? Nobody needs to see an old Han Solo, just like nobody needed to see a clumsy old Indian Jones. What are they smoking over at Disney?
Do they really need a 7th film to stretch out the already overdone narrative of the Skywalker family? FFS, the Star Wars universe is ripe with opportunity to write an unrelated story - yes, with Jedis, Mandalorians or what have you, but no frickin' Skywalkers.
Set it in the KOTOR time period, please. Then I might watch it. Ah, who am I kidding - I'm going to go to the cinema to watch it whatever it's about. ANd I'll probably end up buying the DVD too, out of a sense of duty at being a fan of the once great (now stupidly overdone) Star Wars saga.
Re: Daily defence spending...
(2012 total £39bn)
or 19 hours of one day.
There you go, there's where you can get the money from.
Or from NHS spending. Or education. I'm not sure what your point is. But I suspect it is some ill conceived slight at the armed forces.
Stuff like this creates jobs - that's why, not only for the construction of the site but each of the many tens of thousands of components it needs to operate and be maintained.
I agree. Europe, if it can be considered a single entity, needs more investment in science and research. This sort of funding goes some way towards that. Projects like the ESA missions, LHC at CERN do generate business (and I'm not talking about creating the www), and keep skilled Europeans employed.
Considering a whole generation of southern Europeans are losing out on skilled employment, this sort of project could help to improve that.
I'd rather see the money spent on this than on Tech City brats.
Re: "Developers, developers, developers"
Yeah, they could have picked from a whole host of locations that could do with the money, and could possibly do more with the money.
For one, Birmingham, would be a great choice. It is located centrally. It has a burgeoning finance sector, a manufacturing sector, 3 universities (of varying quality), a relatively new science park etc.
Edinburgh would also make a good choice, as would Oxbridge, due to university presence and highly skilled workforce and first dibs on graduates. I'm sure there are some remnants of Silicon Glen that could be built up.
I would also argue York or Leeds would be good places to try to build a tech hub.
That's if a government funded tech hub is even needed.
As I no longer live in the UK, for the time being, I don't really care that much, but it is a little annoying seeing London getting "everything".
Re: "Developers, developers, developers"
Meanwhile the Cambridge area is spawning the actual high-tech innovation, and the M3 corridor continues to produce most of the software and services that actually get deployed and used.
Not to mention the engineering clusters in the Midlands which make Derby the biggest exporter per capita in the entire UK. Could really use some grant money up in the Midlands to start tech companies to complement the engineering companies.
Re: The Big List
One success is Mind Candy - creators of Moshi Monsters, which I think is a Pokemon type cute monster game. I think it's profitable.
And then there's Last.fm, which I think is based in the SR.
Re: @P_0 (was: During the meanwhile ... )
I'm trying to pass the word along to the johns, who may not appreciate the depth that the pimp can (and obviously does) set the hookers delving into the lives of the unaware johns. If you have issues with me pointing it out, carry on as you see fit. No skin off my teeth.
From my experience more or less everyone is aware that Google tracks you and knows what you (or at least your ip address) is searching for. Who are these unsuspecting Johns? 6 or 7 years ago people could get away with the naivety of not knowing what Google is and what it does, but in 2013 naivety is giving way to incompetence.
Re: During the meanwhile ...
You do read your gmail account from all three (four), right?
Hi welcome to 2013. You seem to come from a time period when this was news.
Obviously, if you are going to use free products (gmail, yahoo mail, hotmail/outlook) "the man" will be tracking you and knows exactly what kind of pr0n you like. That's the way the world works. You do know using gmail isn't compulsory to use the internet, right?
Back to the headline: Yeah Google need to pull their finger out. Their Google Play security stinks. Then again, users should ask themselves, "why would a sexy wallpaper need access to my phone book?"
Re: That's USA, right?
In any case, the underlying issue is that most politicians lack the vertebra required to push an unpopular decision once in a while (f.e cut down on your intravenous Middle East oil dependency).
They did that. It's called fracking.
That's like arguing the hypothesis that chickens come from eggs is falsified by the observation of eggs coming from chickens.
No it isn't. I am pointing out that the very idea that increasing CO2 means increasing temps is historically not necessarily true. There is a fair bit of evidence it is the other way around.
I also noted how you completely side-stepped everything else. i.e. we seem to agree now that AGW is just pure dogma, masquerading as science. If no climate or weather observation can falsify the theory (for example a lull in powerful hurricanes, 15 years of stagnant temps etc), then it is pointless finding ANY evidence form climate to support AGW.
Think about it.
The whole point of collecting evidence (satellite temps, ground temps, ocean temps, data on hurricanes etc etc) is to see if it fits with the hypothesis. But since NONE of this vast amount of data can falsify the theory, as you seem to agree, there is little point collecting ANY of it. We already have the Truth, supposedly.
Usually in science you collect data that can either validate or falsify your theory. AGW is different, since no set of data could falsify it.
Your claim that I am to disprove IR absorption of properties CO2 doesn't hold much water. If that was the issue, climate scientists would be spending their time testing CO2 absorption in the lab. But they don't. They collect data on temps etc. Why is that? And what kind of data could we hope to collect that would show AGW to be, if not falsified, then at least put into question?
I know you have no answer. Because I just showed that you are believing in dogma, not science. Think about it for a bit.
You falsify the IR absorption properties of CO2. Or you can falsify the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is caused by man.
Absurd. AGW theory isn't about CO2 IR absorption properties, but the consequences of the properties. How about co2 change following temperature change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
The very idea that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans changes so readily after adding a few more ppm of co2 and methane is quite absurd. AGW is about the mechanism that makes this increase cause temperatures to increase. I want to know what weather or climate observations could we use to test this idea. None, is the answer you were looking for.
Or even falsify CO2 is rising.
Why. AGW theory is not a statement that co2 is rising, just about its consequences.
There are loads of ways you could falsify the theory.
Nope, you gave examples of things that could falsify other theories.
The problem though is that AGW is pretty much fact.
That statement there is the problem. You have buried you head in the sand and refuse to not only consider ways to falsify the theory, but even don't realize that it isn't even possible to. It is dogmatic belief. You would believe it even if we entered a new ice age tomorrow. (oh right that is predicted in the models too)
Rising CO2 has a warming effect, there's too much science behind this. You are unlikely to falsity the IR absorption properties of CO2. It's been too thoruroughly tested.
I don't want to disprove IR absorption properties of CO2. Your leap from this to trace amounts of CO2 act as a thermostat for the entire dynamic atmospheric and oceanic systems is absurd.
I notice how you are side stepping the issue (as I said waffle waffle). Moving the goal posts to a discussion of IR, when you know this is not what AGW is - it is a theory about the consequences of CO2 increase on the atmosphere.
When creationists make the same claim that evolution cannot be falsified, I point out the old one that finding a rabbit in cambrian rock would falsify it.
Oh great! Then you can provide me with an example that will falsify AGW. Evolution isn't a simple statement that genetic mutations occur, but about the consequences of those mutations on a population over time. Similarly, AGW isn't about IR and CO2, but about the consequences of them. So what is AGW's rabbit in the cambrian rock? *crickets chirping*
But again I point out that the theory is pretty much fact, they are unlikely to find these things.
So what "things" am I unlikely to find examples of that could falsify AGW? 15 years of constant temps?
Would 25 years of plateauing temps despite a cooling Sun prove that the Sun cannot cause cooling?
No and that's why I am also skeptical (though not as much as AGW) about the Sun's direct role in the Earth's climate changes.
"and yet no AGW theorist will tell us an event that would or even could falsify AGW. That's because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't even a science, it's just dogma."
Kind of hard to take climate skeptics seriously when they are simultaneously arguing AGW has been falsified and can't be falsified. Scroll up for climate skeptics arguing AGW has been "trashed".
This is much like creationists who in their denial are torn between claiming evolution has been disproven and then arguing it can't be falsified.
I'm pretty sure we had this discussion in another thread long ago.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, and I know that there is just as much literature picking apart AGW theory as supporting it (of course paid for by Exxon).
Anyway, my point is that AGW has nothing to test. What can we test that could show the theory is wrong? Please tell me. I asked before in another thread and I'm pretty sure your reply was waffle waffle.
My point is not that somebody can look at AGW theory and pick it apart. Of course they can. They have and they do.
My point is that in it's own universe AGW theory is closed. Meaning, if you believe it, then there is no way you can not believe it, by any rational, scientific testing. What would it take you to disbelieve it? 25 year sof plateauing temps? 30? 15 Winters in a row with no record temps? What? Nothing, right. Because it can't be argued against.
This is much like early 20th century Marxism - contained in its own universe it was entirely consistent and logical, and its conclusions made sense . But it rested on a dogmatic faith that was empirically untrue ( The Labour theory of value), but as a part of Marxist dogma could not be argued against.
AFAIK, the more alarmist of the temperature increase predictions required various positive feedback mechanisms in the models to estimated on the high side. Obviously, positive feedback mechanisms are destabilising, and will predict increased severe weather events.
One positive feedback is the infamous melting Siberian permaforst. Gives me the shivers. In fact Al Gore is so worried about this that he is canceling all his air travel, downsizing his house to a tent and will live off the land, with the carbon foot print of a caveman. Oh wait no. That was the alternate reality where anybody believed this crap.
Eponymous Howard, I think even you know how stupid your remark was.
People - climatologists, are doing that. And coming to the opposite conclusion to the AGW crowd. But of course, they're in the pocket of Big Oil. Why? Monbiot, Idiot in Clown in Chief at the Guardian, said so.
In fact, your remark completely missed the point I was making. Suppose I had the time, and the statistical analysis skills (I freely admit I have neither off hand) to go over all the "data". What data would you count as contradictory to the AGW theory? How about static temperatures for the last 15 years? Oh no right, that is totally expected and in line with the models. Of course it is.
You see, the point that you are missing is that no evidence will ever be able to contradict AGW theory. Because it is
(a) completely amorphous and protean.
(b) does not even allow the possibility of being falsified.
We could have constant temperatures for 25 years and the AGW theorists will still be howling at the moon, screaming the sky is falling. It used to be funny, then it was a little scary, right before the Copenhagen conference, when it became clear the whole AGW racket was a complete farce. But, the funding mill keeps grinding on, and institutes like the CRU etc still have to write about something, anything that sells a good scare story. Only these stories aren't scary anymore - if they ever were - they're just sad.
What,here? On El Reg? No chance, as can be seen from the comments above. I blame the editor for turning a technology site into an anti-science one.
Anti-science? The only thing anti-science is the absurd doomsday bridgade whiping up a storm about trace gases frazzling our atmosphere. Climate Change Science is the complete nadir of late 20th/ early 21st century naval-gazing ludicrous theorizing.
It seems any weather event adds more weight to the AGW theory, and yet no AGW theorist will tell us an event that would or even could falsify AGW. That's because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't even a science, it's just dogma.
Re: This is the point.
We may never all agree on what causes climate change, but we should all agree that we need to prepare for it.
And what exactly should we do to prepare? I have an idea, build lots of gas generators and nuclear generators that can keep us warm/cool whatever the weather.
Re: The spammers broke audio "captcha"
Is any kind of CAPTCHA spammer-proof?
Re: It's the hydrogen bomb part
We have more powerful weapons than the h-bomb? What would these be?
From the article
"You get called to the house where there's a body inside, and you expect the house to be burnt down. This house is intact. There is a stove and ice box within 3 feet from where the body's burning, and the handles are not melted."
Only VanZandt's head, hands and feet survived the fire. Lockhart said of the remains: "You could pour gasoline on somebody and he wouldn't be as badly incinerated."
The wick effect creates a slow, smoldering fire. Not only is the above description consistent with the wick effect, it is entirely expected. And the hands, feet and head, the extremities, don't contain enough fat content to maintain the burning.
In conclusion, why is this even news?
Re: Yes but,...
Plus developer interest. I don't believe many developers (one-man teams, small teams and medium sized teams) have enough momentum, sales or desire to start developing for a new platform.
From experience, working for various dev teams over the past 2 years, Tizen is barely mentioned, if at all. I think Tizen, Firefox, Ubuntu and Sailfish (I doubt the latter will really go to market) will just eat each others sales in the bottom 5% of the market not owned by iOS, Android, BB, WP8.
I don't know how reliable this report is - Antivirus/security firms love to talk up the threats.
But China would be stupid not to be doing this. The US almost certainly is infiltrating foreign networks (stuxnet almost certainly US/Israeli).
Cyberspace is the one domain of future warfare where China is on a level playing field. They would be stupid not to take advantage of that. IIRC they almost certainly stole plans for the F-35 "Budget Buster", whether they can reverse it is another matter, but they can and almost certainly are leveraging their computer expertise to catch up technologically with the US.
Re: em-yoo-aye ha-ha ha ha-ha
That would really be ムアッハッハッハ , but to do an "evil" laugh in Japanese you probably wouldn't put a "MUA" in front anyway.
But not yet: for the moment taxpayers' hard-earned cash is needed to pay for seed funding, coaching, workshops and, most importantly, office space close enough to the Old Street roundabout to be cool. That space is critical, as the arrival of Google et al has driven up rent the area to the point where few startups without government money can afford to hang around.
Why can't they work in an office somewhere cheaper?
My only interaction with Yahoo is occasionally using Yahoo Finance, just to look at news, and they sometimes have good video interviews. Other than that I have no interaction with them.
Aside from the news, whatever it is they do, they're doing it wrong.
I just realized when I buy apps on Google Play I show my phone number. Ooops. But I just edited it out. It was my own fault for not reading Google's ToS.
I can also edit the shipping address.
Re: This is true...
Buyers can change this information at any time.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging