* Posts by Chip Mefford

7 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Aug 2007

Card fraud-fearing Brit tourists carry cash

Chip Mefford

Everywhere I go

I carry cash.

Accepted in more fine establishments than

Mastercard

Visa

American Express combined.

This ad paid for by people for a stable economy.

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

Chip Mefford
Stop

the work of good mr goddard

is being deconstructed here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/langswitch_lang/ww#comment-91465

Thankfully with Mr Goddard's participation.

Read and enjoy.

Phones 4u accused of misleading customers

Chip Mefford
Unhappy

In these modern times

*anyone* hands you a contract, it is in their interests, not yours, that you sign.

This is always true. The exceptions are so rare they are buried in the noise floor.

PETA offers $1m for test tube chicken

Chip Mefford
Coat

I think PETA should partner with the US MIlitary

then;

http://www.slate.com/id/2189468/

Sorry, I'll just be getting my coat.

Consumer group slams 'unfair' software licenses

Chip Mefford
Flame

I keep hearing about how MS EULAs

aren't enforceable, legal, et al.

However, I've never heard of one single case where a court of law has overturned any software eula.

It's also true, that I haven't heard alot about MS pushing for enforcement very hard either, but folks can keep saying this stuff, but until someone actually hands MS their hat, and sends them home on this, it's all just noise.

Public rejoices at new 'green' nukes

Chip Mefford

What is the question really?

Nuclear looks nice, and clean enough when the fuel is happily fusioning away in the reactor. However, the swath cut by the fuel on it's way to reactor is pretty wide, bleak and deep. Also, I haven't heard any of the new school pro-nuke pundents address the waste issue.

Of course, some folks are raising a question about actual carbon savings. Is there any carbon savings at all when you add up what it takes to construct a nuke plant and fuel it ? I don't know. It's an intriguing question however.

Right now, there are opinions floating about that state flatly that the 'worse case scenario' of a nuke plant failure, is Chernobyl. Strongly implying that since that wasn't so bad (sic?) everything is just fine. Funny thing seems to be, is that even now, that on some of the really nasty questions, the defenders of the technology retreat behind the veil of 'national security'. And don't come back out again.

Nuclear power has a legacy of secrecy and coverups when it comes to full disclosure on impact and safety. The industry just doens't seem to get it that some of us just don't trust them.

Then there is the awkward sticky wicket about drawing a distinct line between nuclear power and nuclear arms. Again, when the questions get hard, the supporters retreat behind the veil.

Lift the veil, and lets have a real public debate.

It's a wonderfully promsing technology, it always has been. But it's been plagued with problems, and a lot of those problems stem from unanswered questions, questions that are most likley quite answerable, but it appears that were they, folks would get trapped in lies.

The time for lying about all this well past.

An inconvenient update

Chip Mefford

Just for fun;

It's not just the US that has been putting together these numbers. Oddly the overall trend remains clear.

The good Stephen McIntyre is a retired minerals industry fellow, holds no advanced degrees, and has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. Not exactly a statistican, though the claim to status of amateur meteorologist is certainly fair. Mr McIntyre and his degreed colleage Prof Ross McKitrick have been in the game of 'climate change skepticism' for a while now. Prof McKitrick is a fellow at the Frazier Institute. Stephen McIntyre seems to be pretty well thought of by the George C. Marshall Institute as well as a few others.

To his credit, he's worked very hard at debunking the 'hockey stick', and though his career is wholly founded in natural resource extraction, he has managed to put his point in person in front of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee in '06. Not bad or a fellow with no graduate degree! Well done.

All that said, a bit of googling and following the money (ExxonMobil's funding of CGMI, and all that) should tell a broader story.

And to the wholly fair rebuttal someone will offer of ' argumentum ad hominem' all I can say in my defense is "Well, the shoe certainly

fits, doesn't it?"