* Posts by Dodgy Geezer

1129 posts • joined 27 Jul 2007

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Umm...this was mentioned two posts (about 3 hours) ago....

But it bears repeating. A few known sceptical scientists who did not believe in AGW have been found to have their papers included in the 97%.

Apparently the categories worked by counting ANY mention of AGW as explicitly supporting it, unless this was followed by outright rejection of ANY human influence at all. From Cook's own methodology:

..."To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone....

So, unless you wrote a paper saying "ALL AGW is completely wrong", you were counted as supporting it. A paper that said: "This basic aspect of AGW is disproven" would count as supporting it....

Rik Myslewski should be ashamed of himself. It was his job to ensure that the story was a valid one, and not a propaganda scam. It would be nice to have his excuses in these comments....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Pint

Re: This may be a dumb question

...*Which makes you seem amazingly smug...

Yes, that is correct. I am. That is an unfortunate by-product of knowing everything... :)

...You see I was asking whether there's a site that helps people analyse this data, without bias. I'm not exactly sure where to start, and it would be helpful methinks to have somewhere that tries to sort it out without having its own agenda, apologies for wishing we could have some sort of scientific neutrality in the hope of maybe getting the reasonable truth or giving people the tools to help make some sense of it all....

This is a highly politicised subject. You really will NOT get one site which everyone agrees is balanced. Your best bet is to read one side, then the other, and decide for yourself who you think is telling the truth. Be prepared for brickbats along the way. I have provided a start for you, but I didn't hear any thanks...

...that's obviously why I am asking questions you muppet.

I want to be Statler or Waldorf.....

P.S - there IS a site which provides temperature data. It's Wood for Trees The data collections themselves may be biased, but this gives you a look at the raw data. No need to thank me again, your effusive protestations are just too embarrassing....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Lets get this straight

Some interesting news just coming out at Popular Technology.

Apparently the lad who runs that blog was surprised at the findings of this paper, so he emailed a couple of scientists whose papers had been categorised as supporting AGW, but whom he thought opposed it.

Sure enough, they both emailed back to say that their papers did NOT support AGW theory. Both papers were pointing out an error in the AGW hypothesis, but because they mentioned the hypothesis and said that 'this bit is wrong', they were counted as 'endorsing it 50%'

Link is HERE

I suggest that this news renders your attempt to justify Cook's bit of propaganda rather pointless....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Proof?

...That's the difference between scientists and you: They are willing to revise their beliefs based on evidence, observations, and data. You, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something -- regardless of evidence, observations, and data...

I see that you are commenting on a subject you know nothing whatsoever about. Let me correct you, and anyone else who thinks that the point you have made is valid.

These examples are NOT ones of scientists 'finding out mistakes'. They are examples of establishment scientists SUPPRESSING the truth, closing down discussions and ruining the careers of anyone who dared to disagree with them.

The truth about these topics was suppressed for varying lengths of time, as documented in the table below. Global Warming will be joining that list shortly.

Heliocentric view of the Solar System - some hundreds of years

Peptic Ulcers - around 20 years

Plate Tectonics - around 40 years

Piltdown Man - around 40 years

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...Well surely its more sensible than saying give me a massively biased site that lies and obscures truth behind bullshit and statistics? How are you supposed to work out what's the truth if you already know they are biased?...

You appear to be amazingly unintelligent. If a balanced site does not exist, the best that can be done is to provide the leading sites from both sides and allow someone to make up their own mind.

I presume that your view is that all your beliefs are perfect, and everyone else is 'massively biased'? Congratulations.

0
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: A new idea - thinking about the data...!

@Anonymous Coward

Permit me the opportunity to correct that last sentence for you: "And that the deniers of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it...."

Permit me to correct your correction. Rather than follow my normal approach of providing appropriate data and reasoning for my assertions, I will use your AC approach:

1 - You are wrong because I say so.

2 - AGW is wrong because I say so.

I think that covers it nicely....

Incidentally, as a follower of the Pastafarian persuasion, I'm surprised to find you supporting establishment 'scientists'. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes it quite clear that they are a bunch of liars. I suggest that you re-read the first few chapters to re-kindle your faith, and provide a reference here:

The Holy FSM Gospel

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: For God's sake ,...people...!

.."Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs"

No they were asked to rate their own papers. They were not asked for their beliefs.

You are seriously trying to argue that an author's own paper does NOT contain his beliefs? What kind of planet do you come from?

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Bored

".... We now know that the increased strength of the greenhouse effect is causing hurricanes to be stronger...

Shame that the data shows that they're becoming weaker, then, isn't it... :)

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: This may be a dumb question

...With that in mind if anyone can recommend good sites that do look at it dispassionately and are happy to criticise claims on both sides by just sorting through the facts then please let me know ta....

Hmmm. That's a bit like saying that I'm not sure whether to vote Conservative or Labour - give me a nicely balanced site to help me chose...!!

There is, actually, a site which sits scrupulously in the middle. It's called "Climate Debate":

Climate Debate

As you may have gathered, I'm 'anti-AGW', so I look at sites like these below:

Watts up with that

Climate Audit

Climate Resistance

Far be it for me to advise on the 'best' pro-AGW sites, but these are often mentioned. Perhaps some pro-AGW type would like to put down their selection?

Tamino's Open Mind

Real Climate

Skeptical Science

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...we DO know that ocean temperatures are rising everywhere,..

No, we don't. All the northern ocean basins are cooling. Unless you can produce a Global Warming theory which works separately in the two halves of the planet, you're going to have problems with that one...

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: For God's sake ,...people...!

...the correct interpretation is that 69% of the papers expressed no conclusions regarding the truth of ACC. That is not at all the same as neutrality. That means only that none of the 69% can be used to determine what scientists believe. They mean "no data", not "neutral". It would be incorrect to enter ANY numeric value for them into a statistical analysis. ..

This is almost complete nonsense. Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs. If you do the sums with authors who bothered to mark their own papers (the only way to ensure that you get what they think), you get this data (the original data is insufficient for 100% coverage, so does not add up to 100%) :

764 offered no position

412 authors endorsed

47 reject

24 not sure

I make that around 70% who do not think that AGW is proven, and 30% who think it is. A long way from 97% consensus. That is a huge vote for 'the science is not clear yet. Pretending that this data represents 97% of scientists voting FOR AGW by just taking the middle two figures is simply lying propaganda.

The best you could say for this study is that, of the scientists whose minds were made up about AGW, 97% believe in it. And I would like to study the methodology much closer before agreeing that that was a firm finding...

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: so.what do we do....

...Fair cop, for some reason I confused 20,000 for 12,000, mea culpa (in my defence I mention 12,000 above, a case of mathematical dyslexia I fear). But you've not really answered anything, the fact remains that of any papers that expressed an opinion on agw, 97% agree with a human cause...

I'm sorry to hear that you have mathematical dyslexia. But really, if that is a problem for you, you should not be discussing statistics...

Luckily, I am able to help you with some of the sums. Very little information is given (which is suspicious in itself), but here is the basic data which can be gleaned from the figures given.

Papers by 8547 authors were studied, marked, and then the authors were asked for their comments.

Of those authors, 1184 replied.

Of that 1184:

786 said they had no position

412 accepted AGW

47 rejected it

24 were not sure

So, in total, out of 8547 authors, 412 cared about AGW sufficiently to say that they supported it. I make that around 5% of all authors.

However, if you just take the 412 and the 47 as the only 'important' people, you can say that around 90% of 'the scientists who expressed a preference' were for AGW.

Myself, I would say that the main finding was that 95% of scientists didn't think that responding to this survey was very important. You might hazard a guess as to why - I have no opinion...

4
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...In fact, the data show a clear overall warming trend. Most of the heat is going into the ocean below 700 meters. ...

Why are the northern hemisphere oceans ALL cooling, then? Global Warming's taking a summer break in New Zealand, perhaps?

I'll give you a tip. Looking for SOMETHING in the world that is warming, and claiming that that's because of CO2 in the air isn't going to cut it. In this case, you have to explain how the deep sea is being warmed by the air, while the air and the shallow seas are staying the same temperature or cooling. Just sheepishly repeating ScepticalScience or RealityDrops isn't going to persuade anyone....

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: Self-referential meta-rubbish

...This paper is a bit like taking stories from church newsletters and asking the congregation: if this story contains Jesus, do the authors believe in Jesus? I'm sure >97% of them would agree. The icing on the cake is then putting this story back into the newsletter as an self-congratulatory affirmation of faith.

Actually, I understand that most historians believe that Jesus bar-Joseph was a historical person who was killed in Judea around 30AD. The question of whether he was the Son of God is a separate one, of course.

So the paper is actually a bit like asking the question "Did Jesus exist? " and, finding a majority of people agreeing, claiming that therefore they are all Christian. This is a very common trick amongst 'true warmist believers' - they often say "Do you accept that in a lab, air with some CO2 in it gets hotter than air with no CO2 in it?". And when you say: "Yes,but...", they then say "So you must believe in dangerous CO2 heating caused by humans, then, and the need to close down all our power stations!"

3
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

A new idea - thinking about the data...!

"...The rebuttal you link to fits the contradiction behaviour I outlined yesterday. Ie it tries to push these two contradictory arguments:..."

This whole argument is nonsense - based on a blatant piece of propaganda which would not deceive a primary school pupil.

The figures are taken from papers identified with the words 'climate change' or 'global warming'. They looked for agreement or disagreement with the AGW hypothesis. Taking round numbers, they show:

- 70% of papers give no indication

- 30% agree

- A small number (around 1% ) disagree.

These figures were obtained from about 12,000 papers. These had around 8,000 authors. The authors were then asked to 'validate' the opinions of the examining team, around 1,000 responded.

There is no way that this data can say ANYTHING about the opinions of "97% of scientists". For a start. we don't know how many scientists wrote each paper. Although this is an extreme illustration which is almost certainly not true, it is possible, with this methodology, for ONE scientist to have written the 3,600 papers which are claimed to support AGW, and for 5,000 scientists to have written the 120 papers which disagree.

All that can be said is that, of the published papers on Global Warming at present in the literature (and we don't have the timescale for this either), about 1/3 support the hypothesis and 2/3 express no opinion either way. Many of these papers may be disproven by later ones, of course - we simply aren't told enough to know.

And that the supporters of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it....

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: This may be a dumb question

"...certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.

Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer?..

Er, WHY are you looking at this data to find out if the oceans are getting warmer or colder? We have perfectly good direct temperature measurement of all the Earth's oceans. Look at that.

If you're interested, it will tell you that some layers of water are warming up, and others are cooling down. It does not support the theory that increased CO2 concentrations are causing damaging warming.

The use of proxy data like this reminds me of a similar occasion where the warmists tried to find the tropospheric hot-spot that their theory said must exist. There is good temperature data for the upper atmosphere, and it is clear that there is no hot-spot. So the warmists took wind data, manipulated it statistically, and claimed that there had to be a hot-spot to drive the wind variations they obtained from their stats.

When people start doing this kind of thing it is pretty obvious that they are trying to cheat...

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: This may be a dumb question

...This may be a dumb question But I am asking it genuinely so can some one explain it to me.

There seems to be some evidence that a marine and animal life is starting to migrate to areas outside of there norm, for example corals near Japan now seem to be establishing themselves further North where its cooler, certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.

Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer? BTW it may sound it but I am not asking a rhetorical question to prove a point...

A few points:

1 - evidence of biological changes driven by temperature happening in an area are usually good evidence that the temperature in that area is changing.

2 - this whole field of 'science' has now become an activist political arena, so ALL papers on this subject need to be looked at quite cautiously. One common trick that both sides have been accused of is 'cherry-picking' - that is, selecting data to support their hypothesis while ignoring other data which is just as reliable, but which tends to disprove their preferred position.

3 - In this case you would need to look at ALL the world's ocean temperature data to see whether ALL of it was rising. If not, this may be a series of isolated incidents and not a major world change.

4 - The world's ocean currents and temperatures are changing all the time. Some follow cycles which we know about, some changes we do not understand. It is quite possible that corals near Japan may be growing further north if a warm current in that area grows stronger, and for that to be nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Lets get this straight

"You wouldn't expect all papers to offer an opinion. Most biology papers won't offer an opinion on the theory of evolution for example."

Indeed. The only papers which would be 'offering an opinion' would be those who were actively engaged in some controversy on the theory of evolution.

Exactly as is the case here. For most people it isn't an issue one way or another. There is a group of scientists who are pushing their agenda, and a much smaller group criticising it. But the sum total is not great.

You can't claim 97% of scientists with this data...

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

For God's sake ,...people...!

...look at the data!!!!

The claim that the writer makes here:

...an overwhelming percentage agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global warming..

Is terribly misleading. In round figures, the data is:

Of papers using the term 'Global Warming':

69% gave no opinion

30% said it was caused by humans

1% said it wasn't.

This does NOT equate to 97% support for 'Global Warming'. What it looks most like to me is a situation where the majority of scientists are having second thoughts, a fair number still hold to the 'old orthodoxy', and a small minority are out on a limb saying that it's not true. Exactly the situation indicated in Kuhn's 'Paradigm' theory of scientific development, in fact.

As an example of the misleading nature of this piece, consider the same study being done using the words 'Intelligent Design'.

It is quite conceivable that the majority of papers (70%?) would simply mention it without addressing its truth or not - they might be sociological papers describing belief systems. A smaller number (30%) might be papers from true believers asserting that it is true. And a very small fraction might be papers written by non-believers attacking the concept. Quite how you move from that data to an assertion that 97% of people believe in Intelligent Design escapes me....

4
3

Last time CO2 was this high, the world was underwater? NO, actually

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Scientific Theory

...I do believe that we should work to lower carbon emmisions, and we should work towards more carbon neutral or greener forms of energy production where capable. But this is simply for a health point of view...

Why? Lower CO2 emissions are nothing to do with health!

I would be with you if you said that we must stop emitting chemicals which are provably shown to cause damage. I think that it is likely that, other things being equal, we should work towards lowering emissions of chemicals which are alien to the local environment and might cause unwanted side effects, even if these are not fully understood yet.

But our biosphere runs a major CO2 cycle. Just like the Water cycle. It's not an alien chemical, it's totally benign and, in fact essential for life. Put a bit more into the environment - the plants eat a bit more. Nobody is claiming that we should cut back on water vapour - CO2 is similar. It's only the activists who are trying to make CO2 into some kind of poison gas...

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Scientific Theory

...I think you mis-understand how science works. I know quite a few climate scientists and every one of them would love to be able to prove that Global Warming isn't happening, why? Well, when you publish that paper, with definitive proof, you're made for life...

You may be 'made for life', but you'll be out of a job!

Of course, there ARE a number of climate scientists busily publishing papers showing that Global Warming theory has major holes in it. Lewis has just put a piece up advertising three of them. But they don't seem to be 'made for life'.

And the Cook piece about 97% of scientists supporting AGW? Popular Technology blog has two of those scientists pointing out that their papers were classified as supporting AGW when in fact they were pointing out big errors in it.

So I'm not sure I believe you when you say the Climate Scientists really want to disprove AGW. It rather looks as if any disproof of AGW will simply not be accepted....

0
0

Global perils of dirt, glaciers and lizardocalypse overblown, say boffins

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Holmes

...yet the data don't show that it's stopped...

Ah, well, I can only go by what the scientists at the UEA say, and what Pachauri, the head of the IPCC says. If you have data which seems to show different, I'm sure they'll be very interested to study it. AR5 is due soon, and your new data will be really useful for that - they were going to have to put graphs out showing the actual warming dropping out off their predictions...

1
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: @Dodgy Geezer

...If you have any papers in particular you'd like me to look at, i'd be more than happy to do so....

Not at all - you already seem to be well on top of the subject. Noticing the difference between North and South will already indicate to you that this is not a simple case of heat from the air flowing straight into the water - as will the lack of warming in the shallow ocean. Pay attention to the error bars - and consider whether the claimed accuracy is likely to be achieved in practice. Note the many other explanations there might be for small variations in temperature. And come to your own conclusions.

I still have basic thermodynamic difficulties with the idea that CO2 can constantly increase, while the air temperatures heat up, flatline and then decrease, and the ocean conveniently in the meantime soaks up enough heat to maintain the upward curve as predicted. Hansen talks about 'Climate Inertia' - I think that's just shorthand for 'find something which might be getting hotter and claim that that is where the heat is going without bothering to establish a mechanism'...

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

I very much dislike these most recent articles that seem to be implying that global warming doesn't exist at all. Sure maybe it's not happening exactly like we first imagined it. But to imply that it is not happening at all and never will just isn't cricket.

I haven't heard that argument before. Are you seriously saying that if the data show that warming has stopped that we should continue to believe that it's going up because that would be 'sporting'?

...Besides regardless of if it is or isn't 'real' the pursuit of more efficient machines, renewable resources etc can only be a good thing...

No it's not. Please learn a bit more about the balance of efficiency and utility. And consider how the forced application of renewable energy to a system like the Grid which is not able to accept it will damage the entire infrastructure. Why do you think that the Czechs are building blocking transformers between their Grid and the German one?

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

... However the balance of analysis i've seen thus far, which includes deep ocean temperatures, still seems to indicate a warming trend in total...

You have already read the papers which show global warming to be halting.

Read them again, paying particular attention to the suggestion that deep ocean temperatures are maintaining a warming trend. You will find that the data does not bear this out, and what the papers are doing is taking sparse, highly error-prone data and torturing it until they think that they can make assertions about it. The 'deep-ocean' temperature is essentially unknown at present, and highly-error-prone proxies like sea-level figures are being used to estimate it. It is an act of faith to believe in continued warming at present - not a judgement based on good data...

4
2
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Sigh

...For some part I agree. However the CO2 debate also has a lot of positive side effects. Pushing for more efficient energy usage is not such a bad thing. More efficient engines, heating and light, for example....

Actually, it can be a bad thing. Human development and economics are not zero-sum games, but exercises in balance in a constantly changing environment. Efficiency is generally advantageous, but there can easily be such a thing as too much efficiency, if the by-products of this cause problems. For instance, we could insulate houses to a far greater degree than we do at present. We could make the walls much thicker, remove all windows and use an airlock to enter. But this would be considered extreme - in fact we prefer to insulate ourselves to a degree, insulate the house to a degree, and then use energy to maintain a decent temperature.

It is the market place which determines where this balance lies. Monkeying around with the market place by putting 'behaviour-modification' taxes on may improve insulation levels, but will distort other things which may be equally, or more, important. And, since the market-place usually produces the optimum balance, any distortion usually produces a net loss....

6
1

Half of youngsters would swap PRIVACY for... cheaper insurance

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: "privacy is only a problem for the last generation"

...Maybe the question being asked was so biased that the results are probably a waste of time?...

Almost certainly. You don't spend money on a survey unless you know that you are going to get the right answer...

..More than half of UK youngsters think being tracked is a small price to pay for cheaper car insurance, and 26 per cent will be actively seeking a pay-by-the-mile policy in the hope of saving a few quid....

Not exactly. At the price that youngsters insurance currently is, coupled with the fact that they have restricted money, we are talking about being able to afford insurance, or not. In other words, being able to drive, or not.

That's why lots of them are in favour of it....

5
0

'Liberator': Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Idiot

...Erm? Name me a State of the US which was a country before joining the US. Most of them were colonies of other countries, Great Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands etc...

Not that difficult. Texas.

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

...Why not just simplify that to "Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine = Fully Working Gun"? What part of a gun can you make with a 3D printer and not a CNC Milling Machine?...

Actually, the full equation would read:

"Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine+ considerable skill+fully equipped workshop+lots of money = Fully Working Gun" - as against:

"3D printer+ bedroom +bored teenager with internet access=Fully Working Gun"

0
2
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: All very true, but..

..It's a first go, and it's a proof of concept....

Indeed. A similar piece back in 1905 would be claiming that the Wrights had just shown that air travel was pointless. I mean, all that time and effort to glide a few hundred yards at 6 ft high...?

6
0

Penguins in spa-a-a-ce! ISS dumps Windows for Linux on laptops

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

...reaction mass tanks...

I'm not sure what these are meant to be? Are you confused with the lack of heat radiators , which were specifically left off for the reason mentioned below?

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

"...one of the few things Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick got right in the book and film of the same name..."

Given the huge amount of technical study they did on every aspect of the equipment, I prefer to think of them getting EVERYTHING right except one thing - the economics.. And that just means that the date when it really happens wouldn't be 2001, but perhaps 2051...

5
0

Standard Model goes PEAR-SHAPED in CERN experiment

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Coat

I am currently looking for funding...

... for my theory that the fundamental particles of matter are all fruit-shaped.

I believe that this can be determined if we re-configure the LHC into the shape of a banana, and fire pomegranate seeds through it into a melon....

0
0

Secret UN 'ZOD' climate deliberations: UK battles to suppress details

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Meh

...No intelligent person should have to waste his own time, or anyone else's time, defending the indefensible...

I fully agree with the general tone of the piece - Climate Change IS a scam perpetrated by activists masquerading as scientists, and the IPCC needs to be exposed for what it is.

But, given the essentially bureaucratic processes that go on in our current society, and the principle of collective responsibility,. I wonder if anyone can devise a method of living a modern life which does not require, on occasions, intelligent people to defend the indefensible?

After all, people still support QPR...

4
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: as a scientist

...I would like to advise you all that reading any of the early drafts of anything I write is unlikely to help understanding, unless you happen to be some sort of science-process archaeologist or suchlike....

Depends what kind of understanding we are looking for.

No one would be surprised at typos and incorrect statements in a draft. However, the IPCC now have a track record of producing drafts which gain agreement from the world's scientists, and which are then changed on final draft to reverse the original meaning. This has been noticed before.

They get away with this by claiming that it would be too cumbersome to circulate the final draft to everybody for comment, and that all earlier drafts (the only ones that are fully agreed) must be kept secret.

I suggest that, if you had a similar track record, people might be interested in pinning you down on some of the earlier drafts that you wrote.

8
0

The UK's copyright landgrab: The FAQ

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

No problems - we're in this for the long haul. Interestingly, one of the biggest issues with operating the proposed orphan copyright process is that of language. At the moment I'm having to make myself understood to the remains of a small toy company in Czech - Swedish would be yet another tongue to translate my request emails into.

I wish people still used Latin as an international language.... :)

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Go

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

...I loved to build plans and boats as a kid. I think I still have plans at my summer cottage that I could mail you.

I hope your "contact me" works, your hotmail will be old soon....

Well it seems to work - but I have had no mail from you so far today. If you have problems you could ask The Register to forward mail to me at my sign-on address here, and reference this message to indicate my agreement...

DG

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Alert

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

...or perhaps they once had an unfortunate experience in the bath with a toy submarine....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

...7 thumbs up & 1 thumbs down...

Someone who fell in the boating pond when they were little?

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Linux

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

It's running in beta test at the moment, but I really don't want the entire collection of Vultures descending on it at the moment! And it's only got half-a dozen plans in at present.

An earlier site I did specialises in the Keil Kraft EeZeBilt range of starter models - that's at:

KK EeZeBilt junior boats

Contact me at the email given there if you want further info. You will see that copyright permission has been granted by AMERANG, who currently hold rights to the old KK name.

The new site will be for all vintage model boat kits. There is a similar one for model aircraft which is not run by me and is in a more advanced state, with about 4000 plans - that will give you a flavour of what is being done, and that can be found below:

Outer Zone - model Vintage Aircraft plans

All these sites are a lot of work to keep going, with no reward. The 'orphan' feature allows people to do this without being criminalised. If it were to be withdrawn, we would have to stop, and these plans would become unavailable. Any plans out there that we might have saved would become completely lost.

Linux because I don't want to have to pay a microsoft tax on top of everything else...

5
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Two sides to the orphan issue?

Hmmm..

I make model boats as a hobby.

At the moment I am running a project intended to 'save' as many of the old 1930s-1960s model boat kit plans. These kits were typically created by small 'garage' companies post WW2, and went out of business as the owner died. The inheritors of the estate were typically uninterested in continuing the business - any equipment would have been sold and no archives maintained. So all data on the kits and plans would have been withdrawn from sale and lost.

Fragments of these kits exist in attics around the country - now usually dumped in a house clearance after a death. I am producing a web repository for such information where it can be cleaned up, cataloged and made freely available to other modellers. Copyright issues are obviously considered - for instance, where a larger modeling company bought up all assets they are assumed to have the IP and asked for permission to publish. But in many cases the relatives of the original creator (those I can manage to find) knew nothing about any IP that they may have inherited, and, of course, had no documentation from their grandparents of 70 years ago of any kind.

I still contact and inform them when I can, following the proposed EU Orphan procedure. They would be hard for a professional company to find - even harder for an amateur. When found, you might have the interesting issue of who, amongst all the surviving relatives, actually owns any of this IP - if it is ignored I suppose it is split equally between ALL the inheritees? Which would make saving it an impossible task if I had to find all branches of the family. Instead, if I treat it as an orphan, I can process it without being criminalised.

I receive no money from this - it is all done to try to record and preserve data which is in danger of being completely lost. The data is made freely available to everyone as part of the common heritage of humanity. This is the issue which the 'orphan' clause in the Copyright legislation is trying to address.

There may well be things wrong with the current proposals, and opportunities for big companies to ignore the rights of small copyright holders. But I think that the item should have mentioned the real issue that caused the proposal in the first place - not so much the existence of unattributed information in libraries, but the impossibility of collecting and saving unattributed historical information from the world if ALL data must be owned by somebody, and permission obtained before it is processed.

21
1

Plans for fully 3D-printed gun go online next week

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: It's their political agenda we should be worried about

...through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms...

Er - we're talking about AMERICANS here. That's GLOBAL, as in 'from New York to San Francisco'. As in 'The World Series'.

Why would you think that anywhere outside of the US exists? The Americans clearly don't...

7
0

UK.Gov passes Instagram Act: All your pics belong to everyone now

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Excuse me

...There are many images out there that, when fed into Google Image Search and the likes, will give hundreds of entries. Seeing the large quantity of results, will be an excuse to say they couldn't find that drop of water in the ocean...

Your view of the legislation is laughably incorrect!

If you are responsible for carrying out a proper due diligence search on millions of images then you have to do it. Properly. You can't just say "I thought it looked difficult, so I didn't bother". Or rather, you can say that, but the Judge will reply "You admit you didn't do it properly - Guilty".

If you do do a proper job, but still end up using someone else's work, then they don't lose the copyright. They can come after you, have it taken down, and be paid compensation from the fund that you HAD to set up when you started using orphan works.

If they try to delete the metadata and claim that it's not your work - well, they could do that anyway now. This law doesn't make it any easier, or any harder....

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Fine

Now it's odd - you are quite correct and yet you have a lot of down votes....

Lesson 1 in life - Nobody wants to learn the truth if it will spoil a good knee-jerk reaction...

0
0

Serial killer hack threat to gas pipes, traffic lights, power plants

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

I would have thought...

... that the history of DRM and Copyright protection, as well as all the hacking incidents reported for the last 3o years, would have convinced people that there is no such thing as 100% protection. What one person can defend, another can attack.

That being the case, anyone who allows remote control of anything must assume that at some point it is going to be attacked successfully, and should do their risk analysis accordingly.

Maybe the cost-benefit for these connected items has been considered, and determined to be acceptable. But I strongly suspect that it hasn't been considered at all...

3
0

Securing the Internet of Things - or how light bulbs can spy on you

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

...Smart meters are supposed to make changing suppliers easier. The enormous cost is, in part, justified by their ability to drive down prices by increasing competition....

Such a justification is nonsense. Smart meters ONLY reason for existence is that when 'green' power was first proposed, it was obvious that it could never be truly 'dispatchable' - that is, it could never be always provided when it was needed. The answer was found in 'demand management' - that is, forcing you to use energy when the provider company says you can rather than when you want.

All these stories that things will somehow be 'cheaper' are just that - stories. Remember how the Identity Card was going to stop criminals? Same trick. The idea is to get the service or policy out into the country, and then, when people start complaining, say that it's there now and would cost too much to take away...

5
0

The fast-growing energy source set to replace oil: Yes, it's COAL

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Keep the fight going...

...The emergence of renewable power has had essentially no effect on the amount of carbon emissions involved in energy generation...

It does seem important to point out that we shouldn't be caring about the amount of CO2 being emitted. CO2 emissions are NOT a problem - they don't cause any environmental damage, in fact they help plants.

There has now been a 17-year pause in global temperature rise (It's actually gone slightly down), while at the same time we have been continuing to pour CO2 out. All the models which said we would be in danger have been comprehensively proven wrong. But I am sure that the government will still try to tax us on CO2 emissions on the grounds that they might be harmful, but we haven't quite found out how just yet...

8
6
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Renewable Energy

...An extra £50 here and there on the initial purchase sure, but that's pay for itself over the years in energy bills. Especially at current rates....

You should note that you are in a circular argument here. Energy prices are high purely because of taxes. They are not expensive because of any market shortage. The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie, and nuclear energy is practically unlimited, and could be provided for free if we so wished. The prices are being kept artificially high to justify expensive energy-saving technology.

Green activists like to make energy prices high because they view minimal energy use as good in itself. But it is not. We already use far more energy per head than our parents, and our children will use even more - and that is not a bad thing. It is part of the way human societies better themselves. Read Julian Simon.

The Greens have now been defeated in this latest fight. But they will come back again over some other technology. They are anxious to achieve zero growth and stop all human development. Being on their side is not something I would be proud of...

18
12

Cutting CO2 too difficult? Try these 4 simple tricks instead

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Angel

Re: All hail the climate God!

... And the hockey stick is true too unfortunately....

I really am interested in which paper you believe proves the hockey-stick. Do you just generally believe it to be true regardless of any disproof, or is there a specific dataset which you believe has not been disproved?

Do you, for instance believe that Mann's original hockey-stick is still valid? Or Marcott's? Or some other?

Enquiring minds would like to know...

10
2

Forums