Posts by Dr Stephen Jones
157 posts • joined Wednesday 11th July 2007 11:05 GMT
Re: Licence fee
"If you want to know, try watching TV anywhere else in the world and the current "low" standard will be a revelation."
You mean, like The Sopranos?
Or Dexter?
Or Breaking Bad?
The Wire?
It certainly is a revelation.
Re: This Morning
Moonbat agreed to do £25,000 of community service over three years.
http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/12/my-agreement-with-lord-mcalpine/
Re: Well (@fmaxwell)
"The energy lobby has (or "have" for the UK readers) poured massive amounts of money into campaigns designed to undermine public confidence in scientific research and opinion on climate change. "
Evidence?
Oh, wait. You haven't got any.
The energy lobby jumped on the AGW gravy train early, and invested into nuclear and rewewables, because state support for "CO2 mitigation" guaranteed them higher prices. The carbon floor price, which was created by energy industry lobbying is an example of this. It ensures wholesale energy prices far higher than they would be in a competitive market.
The poor pay the most for Climate Change, and alway will.
"Debating doesn't get us very far" - fmaxwell
"Debating doesn't get us very far."
You have now made several posts in response to the analysis of Cook's methodology - without addressing the methodology ONCE?
I can see why you don't want to mention it and keep changing the subject. Ad hominem, appeals to authority, you use anything to avoid defending Cook's work.
Evidence is not right wing or left wing. It's just evidence. You can either build a coherent rational argument with it, or you can't. And the evidence is most of the papers "analysed" were neutral, they were outside Categories 1 and 3. More papers refuted manmade global warming than supported it.
You're an embarrassment, fmaxwell. A terrible advertisement for the scientific method.
@fmaxwell
@fmaxwell: Your intolerence of evidence and rational argument is plain for everyone to see.
I am not surprised you're angry. Every day the climate change industry gets smaller and more desperate. The EU has abandoned renewables, the developing worlds needs fossil fuels to get its citizens out of poverty, and the Western public has noticed that there has been no global warming for > 15 years.
Global warming now consists of a rump of angry activists, like you.
"I'm sick of right-wing tools like you"
My bad. Correction: rump of Political activists.
That says it all, really. I've posted the evidence of Cook's methodology. The evidence does not support the "97 per cent" conclusion.
Get over it.
Re: Lack of Logic Lewis
"Dumb title, counter to the thrust of the other news stories written"
Because sheep are never wrong.
@Spaniel
If you think GMOs are not safe, then show some science to support the claim. Only a few creationists and conspiracy theorists like you still make these assertions, with no evidence to back up their claims.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/01/gm-foods
I agree, the money could be better spent. For example, by teaching you basic grammar and spelling.
Re: Hopelessly biased.
Mr Kenworthy -
You want good old British Leyland back?
Really?
Re: So very sad to see El reg delete comments
+1
Agrees with El Presidente SHOCK.
Re: Fixed the phones?
What did you get your doctorate in? Flower arranging? LOL
Oscar Wilde, we've found your successor.
Re: @Nuke
@Nuke: Also, as the link says, it shows value, not the physical volume.
So we should use physical volume as our measure of manufacturing activity?
That's brilliant, Nuke. Absolutely brilliant.
We therefore need to invest in mass manufacturing styrofoam. Or bouncy castles - we can measure them when they're full of air. Now that's a volume business.
There are some geniuses on here for sure.
Re: Fixed the phones?
El Presidente: You should watch the solitary drinking. Apart from that - with you all the way, Comrade!
(Overgrown middle-aged students are easy to spot by their drinking habits)
Re: At least two sides to this story
brown? fuck brown he was only in office for 5 minutes
Brown ran the Treasury for 13 years.
Re: At least two sides to this story
@Clyde:
It was Blair/Brown and NuLabour who deregulated finance, and then impoverished our grandchildren by bailing out the useless f@ckers.
She used the assets created by past generations to fund her dreams
Like what, exactly?
The asset base of any manufacturer is written down very quickly, it needs to be replenished with newer and more productive technology. Thatcher ensured the state was not making these purchasing decisions or spending our money on basket-case industries or companies like British Leyland. Even the French socialists extracted the state from industry, eventually.
You blame Thatcher for historical progress where low-skilled low-wage metal-bashing jobs are replaced by better paid jobs. A bit sad, really, but then it sounds like you could start a fight with yourself and a mirror.
Re: Between The Unions and Thatcher
@Elron Cupboard
The UK has F*&k all manufacturing base left.
Actually:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/
Here's a nice simple picture even you can understand.
{ insert song lyric here }
Re: Gordon Deitrich
He plays himself in everything.
I think he was being sarcastic.
Google for "Male International Airport" and the new beachfront developments there to see what the Maldives really expect from global warming. The government is stimulating a property boom at sea level:
http://www.hdc.com.mv/
They do not expect to drown very soon.
And with one giant leap...
See how the Boffin jumps from 'shared nervous system' to 'solving cognitive problems'.
Which tells us he doesn't know what cognition is. Unless your brain is in your bum muscle.
Re: Dispassionate
"this recent study by the PIK researchers deserves – at minimum – dispassionate consideration"
But Rik ignores the hard evidence (not models) that extreme weather events have decreased. eg, hurricanes at a 40-year low. This is because evidence doesn't support his superstitions.
Perhaps Rik is capable of dispassionate consideration. But not, it seems, when the subject is climate.
Nom Nom Nom
The sound a man makes when he has his figures in his ears.
As in:
"Nom Nom Nom. I can't hear you. Nom Nom Nom"
huh?? indeed
Chirgwin's assertion, like most of his assertions, is scientifically illiterate.
Volcanic eruptions are one of the easier factors to assess and model, because the effect is dramatic and short-lived. We simply compare the temperature record with periods of low volcanic activity.
That wasn't hard was it?
Not only does Chirgwin not understand the climate, he's never met a sceptic.
Re: Well.
NomNomNom, like most climate activists, can't tell the difference.
Who's idea was it to give him a keyboard? It's a total fail every time he starts typing.
Re: No, that's NOT what this means.
"Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come. The effects continue for hundreds of years at least. Let's get to work, NOW, to reduce GHG pollution"
Please come and "pollute" my plants - they need this kind of pollution.
With a user name like ReduceGHGs, I assume you get paid to write this drivel.
I am not a fan of Diane Abbott at all, and would be happy never to see the name again. But this entire article is one mad non sequitur after another.
"Active web-filtering has already been sort of introduced in the UK"
No it hasn't. At least if the story at The Reg linked to is to be believed.
"...but largely resisted."
Eh?
"Abbott thinks there's something wrong with teenage boys learning about sex from hardcore porn"
Maybe there is?
"but she doesn't offer ways for them to change any subsequent damaging behaviour."
Perhaps ceasing to use Anal Midget Adventures Vol.3 as educational material is all that's needed. It's hard to tell what Abbott is really saying, because the writer here is so keen to tell us not to listen to her.
Re: Computer Models!
"Do you mean that ALL people who are concerned about the issue are zealous nutters?"
No, that's a straw man argument you invented.
I know sensible environmentalists who are not prepared to sacrifice human welfare for "the planet". Many back nuclear power, for example.
There is also a strand within environmentalism that sees humans as the enemy and wants people to be wiped out, so the planet can survive. There are others who engage in wishful thinking, like the author of this article, and advance dishonest or innumerate arguments for "the cause". This is cult-like, religious, and irrational.
It is you who is trying to tar all environmentalists - try advancing an argument in its merits.
Re: Computer Models!
"Whose idea was it to use reporters from San Francisco? The Reg has really gone downhill since."
Environmentalism is a religion, a kind of Doomsday Cult. It is probably the most popular religion in San Francisco.
It is Evangelical by nature - the Faithful can't stop preaching, and the Faithful need to keep reassuring each other. Computer models come in very handy since you can "prove" anything with modelling.
The entire article is a triumph of Faith over reason. The giveaway in the headline is "all power" - which implies transportation (air, car) energy will be provided by renewable sources. Battery powered planes and fighter aircraft. Uh, huh.
Leave the Faithful like Rik to their fantasies. They probably can't hear us laughing at them.
Re: Ummm... this is a MODELED finding?
And they say Evangelical Christians are irrational.
Keep believing. Just keep believing.
Szzz
You sound like someone who spends a lot of time in the mirror, practicing speeches no one will ever listen to.
If you are that clairvoyant, please can you tell us who will win the 2013 FA Cup?
Re: Interesting
You will be downvoted for being rational.
They're not switching from coal - a point that seemed to elude Mr Chirgwin.
Mother Jones?
Junk science from ageing hippies. Why would I expect them to say anything else?
Re: "no warming since 1998"?
You've just posted a four year old article?
Jeez, the Global Warming crackpots aren't even trying any more.
"Mother Earth is Angry and Punishing Wicked Mankind"
"Just planet Earth trying to compensate. It won't be able to do that forever."
A large number of superstitious assumptions in those 14 words.
The more superstitious people are, the more they claim "science" supports their superstitions.
Re: Global temperature not going up?
"0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1."
Holy Crap.
We really are doomed.
Re: and this is a surprise?
"Sent from my iPad"
I presume you will now renounce the use of all cheap consumer electronics made in developing countries, or using minerals extracted in developing countries - and now communicate using drums.
Damn globalisation - I hate it.
But which smartphone should I buy?
That isn't a joke
It's official Green policy.
Re: So, what, 3.5cm per century rather than 3.0?
That's how Chirgwin likes it.
"breaks almost any records" cracked me up.
Sloppy, sloppy.
Re: Wait until
People make sacrifices if they think it is worth the pain. Any American action to reduce CO2 is pointless, because the developing countries emit more, and simply ignore what the USA does.
Steve McIntyre pointed this out recently. Even if the USA reduced CO2 emissions to zero, China's output today is greater than the USA's emissions in 2005.
The propaganda is not working because no propaganda to reduce CO2 emissions in the USA and Europe will now work.
Your got post got downvoted because the Greens cannot accept this reality.
Re: Considering the Lewandowsky scandal ...
"One is that the Global Warming supporters have comprehensively lost the scientific battle - unsurprisingly, since their warming scares do not match measured data, even with corrupt massaging of the figures."
This is true - and Rik Myskewski has not caught up yet.
But his FAITH is STRONG!
Why countries don't sign climate change treaties
"Many countries are unwilling to sign a treaty when greenhouse gas emission reductions cannot be independently verified."
No.
They are unwilling to agree to greenhouse gas emission reductions because want to lift their populations out of poverty. They want power grids, advanced transportation systems, low bills for manufacturing, etc so they can have a developed economy.
If they don't build these they will be chucked out and some other politician will. They need the cheap energy to do so and right now fossil fuels == cheap energy.
Sorry Tarquin, Jemima and all you middle class climate change campaigners - the game is over. And you still don't get why you lost.
Re: rodent
Me too.
Mouse on Mars will be pleased.
Re: Wow
" I guess we will leave the problems to future generations then... that has worked very well in the past."
It has, because future generations have better technology and infrastructure to deal with the problem. It's easier to build a sea defence out of steel and concrete than it is to build it out of wattle and daub. This generation is relatively poor - and does not need further burdening.
A sure way of f*cking over future generations is to leave them 'sustainable' (aka rubbish) technology. That will guarantee they go hungry and cold.
@LeeDowling
+1
The last thing some people want is a comparison of the cost of the fix vs the cost of the problem. There's a lot of money (and careers) riding on that comparison never being made.
"According to computer models...
... scientists were surprised"
This must be pre-printed on every climate-related press release.
Now let's look at the modelers assumptions.
"Assuming that other resources for growth are constant"
Yeah, OK. But we know there more CO2 means more plant food for fish, we know that life thrives in warmer temperatures, we know ecosystems are stimulated by CO2, we know warmer climate causes greater biodiversity.
The model, and the report, are garbage. Where's Lewis when you need him?
@h4rm0ny
"But it's not strictly limited to that issue and I'm very glad to see this article actually raises the environmental motivation many of us have for buying organic."
Right. So you support organics because they have a propaganda value? That says it all, really.
"The throwing out of food because it's a funny shape or too small or big or off-colour, is the real fuck you to the developing world."
No, it's not. The real fuck-you to the developing world is us stopping them getting higher productivity agriculture, cheaper energy and inward investment. Farmers in developing countries buy new seed every year, whether it's GM or not. They want pesticides and they want higher yields. But affluent ninnies like you want to stop them using them.
People like you love to keep the poor where they are - they look lovely on postcards. You might not think you're a racist, but your politics certainly is.
Re: Science and allergies
"Is that so stupid?"
It's exactly the kind of superstition I would expect from a Guardian reader.
Job creation scheme
Arts Graduates to the rescue!
It doesn't work and it will severely harm the producer economies (as Tim says) and all it does is put prices up here. We'll keep buying the finished goods. It's genius. But Enough Project isn't a "human rights group" - it's an anti-business group. Capitalism is evil, and all that.
I read that one third of graduates here are unemployed. The arts graduates are the least employable of all. Crusades like this give them something to do, and they're thousands of miles away from the grief they cause.
Even NREL acknowledges that it cheats:
Chirgwin glosses over the costs or doesn't mention them at all.
Hippies never do.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2012/06/16/renewable-energys-escalating-political-crisis/
“estimated new transmission miles and investments do not include replacement in kind of existing transmission lines, substations, or other infrastructure, and therefore understate the total amount of and associated investment in transmission infrastructure likely to be built over the study period.”
