You must have a very long memory.
24 posts • joined 17 Dec 2009
A bit of a problem with point 1). It has start/stop so there isn't an idle time.
I have an Audi A1 automatic with start/stop and find it can be dangerous. On two occasions I have been waiting at a busy junction and haven't noticed that the engine has stopped. When there was a gap in the traffic I ended up lurching into the on-coming traffic as the engine started.
It has been calculated that the Tunguska event could have been caused by an asteroid with a diameter of 60 Metres with solid composition. So, depending on its composition it could cause a lot of damage but not capable of wiping out the planet.
Unless the Tunguska event was caused by something far more exotic, like a black hole or UFO
I agree, 3D is a waste of time but most good new TVs come with it. You do not get a choice for paying a bit less for one without 3D. I have had a Samsung UE55D8000 3D TV for over 4 months and I have not played a single 3D film - even the free one that came with it.
I have to put up with a 10mm bezel - but I will live with it ;-)
I bet they the Yanks are up to no good again!
They have done this at least twice before, supersonic flight and the atom bomb.
They pretend they are going to collaborate on a project. They come over here steal all our ideas and research. When it is time for them to share their ideas they say that they are not allowed to do so.
I made investments into the Halifax in October 2007 – at one point the value fell to half of what I put in and they are only just breaking even at the moment. I would have got the same amount of interest if I had put it under the bed – and without the stress of seeing it fall.
I think it may be time to ditch them and put my money somewhere else.
It seems to me that these climatologists are trying to protect their gravy train. If a research student put in for a grant to study squirrels in the New forest it would far more likely be accepted if it was reworded to 'The affects of climate change on squirrels in the new forest'. Then if no evidence is found are they likely to be given another grant in the future. So it is in their own interest to try to find a link either by fair means or foul.
Why don't they openly provide their raw data? The obvious reason is that they are hiding something.
As to computer models, I have played with computer models of chaos systems in the past, I found it surprising how a very small tweak here and there can make enormous difference to the final result
Can anyone think of another reason why 'the climatologists were extremely keen to push that case and to suppress scientific dissent on the matter'
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019