201 posts • joined 11 Jul 2007
Re: It's coming Tories/Labour/Lib Dems...............................
The Guardian readers here won't like your comment - even though they know you are 100% correct
Choose your poison
"Here in the US, the last twenty years have seen a radical – and highly vocal – group of Protestants calling for the installation of a theocracy in the US, claiming evolution and Christianity are incompatible, and claiming the ills of the world are down to things like gay marriage or the ACLU."
While another bunch of highly vocal theocrats blow up statutes and attack young girls who want to be educated. (These pop up in under developed countries, far away).
And a third, highly vocal bunch of theocrats argue that mankind is wicked, that we must stop defacing the Earth Goddess Gaia, and we must obey their High Priests, whose medieval prescriptions must be obeyed. (These theocrats are the ones who pass laws, right here).
So *faith* and *faith-based authoritarianism* is clearly on the rise - and whatever the Internet has to offer, like Twitter, doesn't seem to diminish it. Sorry Professor Downey.
Personally, given the choice of three completely crap religions, I'll take a straight scotch please. No ice.
Is this a practical joke?
I keep expecting Chris Morris to appear in Impossible.com explaining that "It's all been a joke." The entire Innovation in Giving Fund was created for a new series of Brass Eye.
If any of this is real then the UK is in deeper shit than anyone thought.
Re: Doesn't the GWPF take
"An a priori view that there is an overreaction to human driven climate change"
Reading comprehension #fail.
Which part of "the IPCC has lowered its estimates" don't you understand? The IPCC took into account a range of literature and observational data, including Lewis' own 2012 paper. The GWPF does not run the the IPCC. Lewis 2012 was peer-reviewed and published in the American Metereological Association's Journal of Climate - the abstract is posted in an earlier comment
The reason you are madly scrambling around for motives is because you do not want to look at the science.
How times change
Peer reviewed science publishes catastrophic climate predictions.
Activists response: "We come armed only with Peer reviewed science. We must do what the science says."
Peer reviewed science publishes climate predictions much less catastrophic than before.
Activists response: stick fingers in ears, shout: "Tra-la-la - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
To the first AC:
I'll believe you when you can show me your workings. To save you the headache, the 2C is over pre-industrial levels. Lewis is with the IPCC bounds, but at the lower end of the 5-95 probability range. And the IPCC has lowered, not raised its estimates.
You do not seem to have read or understood the literature - and I smell panic.
Whattaya gonna say?
"EE's principal network architect has recently said that he expecta EE to switch off 3G before 2G"
You no lika the service? You shaddapaya ya face!
From the review:
"There are several limitations to the analyses that the authors acknowledge. The small number of available studies to include in the meta-analysis and their significant heterogeneity speaks to a paucity of overall evidence in this area and substantially complicates the interpretation of their pooled estimates. In addition, given the relatively consistent findings across studies and the difficulty in combining their results using meta-analytic techniques, it is unclear whether combining studies that used such disparate methods provides incrementally more additional information than the individual studies alone."
Of the nine studies, only one has a decent sample size. The studies can't be aggregated or compared. The rest of this meta-analysis is just padding.
Re: Private interests
Too little too late from Goldacre, who has been a cheerleader for the scheme, and was telling everyone who objected we were Luddites or idiots as recently as a week ago. He supported the extraction six months ago when there was no patient opt-out at all.
Re: Go for it?
"If everyone was taught to code, then maybe people would finally appreciate that the ability to write decent code is a skill well worth paying properly for."
People can appreciate that writing decent code is a skill every time they see a BSOD at their cash machine. Teaching every child to code is therefore completely unnecessary.
Re: Some things I know, many things I don't
"Using up fossil fuels in wasteful ways, when oil and the like are also needed to manufacture more durable products, is not tenable in the long run"
Two words: shale gas.
Peak oil is dead, we have so much cheap gas we're converting it into oil. Or converting technologies dependent on oil-derivatives to run on gas. So we have 300-700 years longer to find alternatives to digging up hydrocarbons.
If you think we won't have developed better energy technology in 700 years time, then we don't deserve to survive.
Re: Your move
"More anti-science dressed up as someone who thinks of themself as a rational science based person."
Someone who think that human civilisation is under threat from a 2C rise in *average* temperatures ... is being rational?
I don't think so.
Someone who thinks that a glacier melting *during an interglacial period* is an unusual data point ... is being rational?
I don't think so.
Someone who takes the output of models which don't reflect aerosols or clouds, and treats that output as the empirical data of a scientific experiment ... is clearly rational?
Rationality in climate debates would be a welcome development. If you are you in favour of more, I suggest you start with your own side, and clean up your own house.
Re: Thing is, we *are* all doomed.
"When you're captaining a cruise liner, it's generally a better idea to steer away from the rocks in the first place, than to be the first one in the lifeboats. No matter how impressed your mates might be by you sailing so close to the shore."
You thinking emotionally and not rationally. This is a *very* bad analogy.
A better analogy is do you need to saw your leg off because you've picked up a bruise. Every policy response to climate change has a benefit and a cost. If the costs of a policy outweigh the benefits they are not worth pursuing. It so happens that the cost of adaptation and building up resilience capacity (go look up RCI) is much lower than mitigation. This is now what is happening: even the EU realises renewables are suicidal.
I suggest you start to read up on CO2 fertilization, because your idea that a CO2 enriched atmosphere mass famines is not remotely supportable. CO2 is plant food. Maybe you missed that particular science lesson at school.
Re: "the absurdity that exudes from the patient office, the patient trolls"
More vicious than a suicide bomber? I don't think so.
That's... the best you can do in response? No wonder climate change campaigners can't understand why they've lost.
Thanks for your contribution. Close the door on the way out, .
"Why can't the city pull a Robin Hood and take more from the tech cos?"
Now I can understand why Silicon Valley wants to secede from the rest of California.
What could justify this theft? Hipster brogrammers with goatee beards may be very annoying, but that's not a valid excuse to steal from them. There is no externality to tax. The Google and Facebook buses are reducing an externality - car traffic. So the justification must be spite and envy.
"...Because it is restricted by Proposition 218 – a Kafkaesque bit of regulation that prohibits local governments from making more money off a property-related fee than the cost of providing the item the fee is being charged against – in this case a fraction of the time available at public bus stops."
In other words, San Franciscans already have protection against greedy government officials enacting their spite-driven punitive money grabs. There is nothing Kafka-esque about this, any more than Miranda rights or detention limits are "Kafka-esque".
Yes, the State of California does need to sort out its property taxes. But the city of SF more than makes up for it:
"San Francisco property tax take to exceed $2 billion for first time "
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "growth" dependent on using the planet's resources faster than they can recover (otherwise it wouldn't be growth) "
Economic growth is simply the monetary value of goods and services. But to makes these goods and services we use fewer natural resources all the time as our technology advances. We don't need to chop down trees for firewood, kill whales for their blubber, soon we won't need to dig out coal. We need less land to grow food. Much of this can "return to nature". You will know all this is true by looking out of the window.
Basically, your philosophy is a medieval pre-scientific one. Consider yourself corrected.
"Now when China, Africa, India et al want to use coal to advance their economies it is all bad, bad bad."
Exactly. Greens don't want Africa to develop, and are trying to do everything they can to stop it developing.
So Africa suffers high mortality rates and malnutrition, and suffers unnecessarily from natural disasters, because white Guardian readers / NPR listeners feel guilty about their iPads.
"Who currently is the biggest potential beneficiary from continuing with oil and coal use?"
Q. "Who currently is the biggest potential beneficiary from continuing with oil and coal use?"
A. The poorest people in the world.
There. Fixed it for you.
Re: Lewis isn't evil
"However, for every person that is sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans."
Classic fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam
Many scientists have always been sceptical that humans are the biggest influence on the climate. What is more important and what you may have missed is that the general public have now noticed that the climate hasn't warmed for 17 years and the "scientist's" models over-estimate the warming.
A car with a range of 21 miles is not "significant development", it's a joke. It does not solve any problem, it creates them. That's why everyone is laughing at Ford today.
All Ford has demonstrated is that Greens are the most gullible and easy-to-impress people on the planet, right up there with End Times evangelicals who insist they can see the face of Jesus in a donut. They'll applaud anything.
A car with a range of 21 miles is "a welcome development?"
If the LAPD were equipped with these mean machines, then OJ Simpson would have got away.
Re: Parody exception
Pride and Prejudice with a cock and balls scrawled over Mr Darcy's crotch wouldn't be because the content hasn't changed at all.
Pride and Prejudice is out of copyright.
You don't understand what a copyright exemption means - even though the clue is in the name. It is a specific use of a copyright work where those rights cannot be asserted. Think of it as being "out of copyright" for that particular use. Your test is irrelevant because the copyright holder cannot apply it.
So my Dan Brown example is accurate. I can do anything i want if I call it a parody.
Welcome to the real world!
I can't wait to start selling my Dan Brown "parodies" - which are a Dan Brown book with a cock and two balls scribbled on the front page in biro. It's a parody, see? A transformative work! So you can't catch me.
Once a parody exception to copyright has been introduced then it will be impossible to stop anyone doing this. Draw a moustache on Nigella - and sell your own Nigella books. They're a parody too.
Give it a year or two of lawsuits and this will be quietly repealed, with the fucktard civil servants who brought it in retiring nicely on a million pound final salary (oops - "Career Average") pension.
It's an impressive list. Then you get to Cory Doctorow and Tariq Ali. FFS.
Re: @Turtle - Same. Or Worse.
"Venal worm" is much too kind to Cory Doctorow, worms are very beneficial to the ecosystem.
A Google Doodle is now a Register story?
I am not exactly sure what a "Rubicon" is, but whatever it is, it has been crossed.
Why does the author think Typhoon Haiyan is caused by manmade climate change, when the iPCC doesn't? If climate change really is "happening" then it cannot be causing an increase in cyclones, which are at a 40 year low.
The only answer is that Mr Chirgwin has failed to shed his medieval ancestors' superstitions.
Re: One point that is often conveniently forgotten ...
the highly addictive nature of nicotine
Don't forget the highly addictive nature of coffee. Or doughnuts. Perhaps those should be banned too?
No doubt some twitchy Puritan is already working on the campaign. They won't be happy until it looks like Utah.
Re: One point that is often conveniently forgotten ...
No matter how you you look at it, these narcotic drug delivery systems are evil.
No, that's how you look at it because "evil" is an ethical position, not a material scientific fact.
Provable harm is required before banning something. The e-cigarettes may annoy you, but they cause you no harm. Therefore you have no reasonable to stop other people enjoying them, any more than you can ban people for being left-handed.
Now take your nasty intolerant Puritan little self off and go and cry in the corner.
Re: Budget cuts have to come from somewhere....
Unfortunately, the el Reg commentariat sounds a lot like interest groups everywhere else.
It is advancing the gravy train.
If Obama has spent $10 billion over 4 years on climate modelling and they couldn't find the missing heat, and couldn't explain the pause.
Time for new scientists. The planet will be OK.
Re: @Mahat And his biggest writing influence is...
Downvoted for not checking your facts - he broke with them years ago.
He says he's no longer a member of "the church". This doesn't contradict the fact that $cientology is Gaiman's biggest influence. The young Gaiman was a model $cientologist:
Re: I don't know about you...
"Behind that mask is an idea, and an idea is bulletproof"
Like Communism, or slavery?
We'll just have to pretend to ignore those ideas lying on the floor, riddled with bullets, because they were, frankly, terrible ideas.
Re: greenies are wrong about almost everything
"Green power was only expensive because of the feed in tariffs"
No, green power is expensive because of something called "physics".
Look it up.
Re: Enlightening Article but
Haven't you heard AC? Everyone's a victim of some psychological or psychiatric disorder nowadays. DSM-5 leaves almost nothing unclssified. This creates lots of jobs for quacks, and that is not an accident.
For people who identify with Asperger's this has some disadvantages. You will now be excluded from things you're perfectly capable of doing, like making a contribution to office politcs - because "you're an Aspie".
Greenberg on quacks is worth a read:
Adam Curtis has also covered this a lot in his BBC films:
No one is allowed to be "a little different" now - or even "a little sad". The psychology and psychiatry industry has made sure of that. Any classification system which leaves you with less power than you had is a trap.
Re: Such a waste of time and paper.
"Developing their economies and raising their living standards (that includes consuming much more energy per capita) will naturally limit the population growth, just as it already did in the "developed world", where the real growth is negative and the apparent one is mostly due to inflow of immigration."
Here you'll be down-voted by the superstitious and the bedroom fascists: the Unabombers in slippers.They only want to hear mankind is wicked and we're all doomed.
"Ann Frank's drum kit"
Damn you, Orlowski.
Child pornography is quite rightly blocked - would you like to see a 451 message there too?
Tim Bray is a poseur and there is a good reason this is not implemented - criminals would use it the most.
Journalism or Churnalism?
How come even liberal newspapers can report this more intelligently than The Register?
"Experts accuse the authors of gross errors and a distortive selection of data.”
In Scheffran's meta-study, the researchers deliberately excluded 11 papers that contradicted their thesis. So all those lovely graphs in the story are junk. Surely it would have taken less time to study Scheffran's methodology?
IPCC author Tol also finds that "Most of the Hsiang-Team’s evaluated studies had to do with weather phenomena, Tol believes. ‘Forecasts on the conflict-enhancing effect of future climate was therefore strongly exaggerated’.” And it assumes no adaptability from humans: we'll just start raping more, fighting more, and start more wars.
The rule here appears to be if a climate study is sensationalist enough, then Rik Myslewski will post it anyway. If reporters want to be climate activists, let them do it in their own time.
Re: Biggest problem
I'll sum up your post for you:
"Wealthy Western white guy hates brown-skinned people"
We have fewer wars over resources than ever. The global population will soon begin decline. Our technological capacity for supporting human life has never been higher.
All in all, your prediction lacks a credible supporting argument.
Re: Unbiased != giving equal weight to all viewpoints
"In my view the BBC is as about as unbiased a news source as they can be"
Which makes you a Guardian reader who loves the fact that the BBC's prejudices match your own.
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral ... It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias" - Andrew Marr.
We have it from the horse's mouth that it struggles to reflect a range of opinion on Europe, immigration, business, etc. Check out this week's fracking coverage.
The unbiased BBC you thought you grew up does not exist any more.
Re: But he wasn't threated with a long jail term
"The prosecution was offering a deal of a few weeks, and his lawyers said that they almost had a no-jail time deal."
This is correct.
But the Swartz loonies want their martyr, and need to blame everybody but the misguided lad himself.
Never trust an argument which rejects the facts.
Re: Down the tubes we go (again)
"It was spent on lowering personal taxation to win elections"
If only that was true!
Actually, a lot of taxpayers' money was spent on paying people to do nothing during two recessions (1980-82 and 1989-93). To his credit Lawson did substantially pay off the national debt in between. Norway does not have a large welfare state, because it does not have many Norwegians. .
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 Breaking Bad?
It certainly is a revelation.
Re: This Morning
Moonbat agreed to do £25,000 of community service over three years.
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. "
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: 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.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Android engineer: We DIDN'T copy Apple OR follow Samsung's orders
- Pics Audio fans, prepare yourself for the Second Coming ... of Blu-ray
- Microsoft: Windows version you probably haven't upgraded to yet is ALREADY OBSOLETE