* Posts by caradoc

32 posts • joined 9 Dec 2012

Brexit? HP Inc laughs in the face of Brexit! Hard or soft, PC maker claims it's 'no significant risk'

caradoc

"Britain has already been forced to ask the trade body to extend D-Day twice under outgoing PM Theresa May."

Trade body?? If only that's all it was.

UK.gov plans £2,500 fines for kids flying toy drones within 3 MILES of airports

caradoc

Re: Droning on

Remember Blunkett and the tanks a few years ago?

Holy crappuccino. There's a latte trouble brewing... Bio-boffins reckon 60%+ of coffee species may be doomed

caradoc

Re: Umm... nope.

"the warming is happening, is very rapid, and is quickly getting worse."

The facts do not support your statement. There is no current warming trend, ice is increasing at the poles, extreme weather events are not increasing. Computer models are not science and the infamous 97% consensus is a joke.

There are lots of people who have studied this and investigated it and know about it, who disagree with the doom mongers who have been predicting, for example, that there should have been no ice at the N Pole 10 years ago. They tell us it is 1 degree warmer than before 1850. Thank heaven it is, was the Little Ice Age a desirable temperature to around in?

Citation needed: Europe claims Kaspersky wares 'confirmed as malicious'

caradoc

Re: And remove USA software?

"it was already bad before Trump, now it can only get worse."

Is he writing software now?

There are few options left to blame for troubles in the world these days:

It's Putin

or

It's Trump,

or

It's Global Warming.

Cambridge Analytica dismantled for good? Nope: It just changed its name to Emerdata

caradoc

Re: Of course they'll come back

The Guardian says they did, link posted also in another reply; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election

"In 2008 the Obama digital team was lauded around the world for its groundbreaking work on internet fundraising. Yet in fact, the separation of its data on voters into several distinct silos forced high-level staffers to spend hours manually downloading information from one database to another.

The Obama team in 2008 did a good job in beginning to tear down those walls, releasing extraordinary fundraising energy in the process that raised about $500m online.

This year the Chicago team hasn't knocked down the walls so much as dispensed with them altogether. They have built from the ground up a unified database that incorporates and connects everything the campaign knows about a voter within it.

Jeff Chester of the digital advertising watchdog Center for Digital Democracy, which has been calling for regulators to review the growth of digital marketing in politics, said that "this is beyond J Edgar Hoover's dream. In its rush to exploit the power of digital data to win re-election, the Obama campaign appears to be ignoring the ethical and moral implications."

The Obama database incorporates Vote Builder, a store of essential information such as age, postal address, occupation and voting history drawn from the voter files of 190 million active voters."

Nice try though....

caradoc

Re: "it was ignored"

The Guardian didn't ignore it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election

"Barack Obama's re-election team are building a vast digital data operation that for the first time combines a unified database on millions of Americans with the power of Facebook to target individual voters to a degree never achieved before.

Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.

Advertisement

Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.

"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says."

Note the "consciously or otherwise"....

Climate-change skeptic lined up to run NASA in this Trump timeline

caradoc

Re: Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain...

"cleared of any wrong-doing."

Really? The snippet you quote out of context, describes the manipulation of data to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. The proxy measurements declined at the end of the period charted and were then spliced with instrumental records to produce an uplift and "hide the decline" in the proxy record. It was at the very least, bad science. MCIntyre and McKitrick showed that random numbers would produce a hockey stick.

Are you sir, an original fraud?

caradoc

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"the climate scientists"

This is not an exclusive body of people, there are many hundreds of climate scientists and thousands of scientists in general who do not believe the global warming paradigm. The presentation of "the science" is heavily biased towards alarmism and contrary papers get a rough ride in the major journals because the protagonists control those journals. You only need to check out the editorial boards. Here is an example I came across today:

This man is an economist, but has been an IPCC "scientist" for many years.

"Nebojsa Nakicenovic is Deputy Director General and Deputy CEO of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and former full Professor of Energy Economics at Vienna University of Technology. Among other positions, he is Executive Director of The World in 2050; Member of the United Nations Secretary General Special Advisory 10-Member Group to support the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, He serves on the Editorial Board of 10 scientific journals."

Is he going to let contrary papers through on the climate science journals he inhabits?

Germany to Facebook, Twitter: We are *this* close to fining you €50m unless you delete fake news within 24 hours

caradoc

Re: Could be tricky

Trump is playing the MSM at their own game. They disseminate false claims the whole time without evidence and then later partially retract, but the headline is out there and sticks as fact.

Just what Europe needs – another bungled exit: Mars lander goes AWOL

caradoc

Maybe it was shot down by the locals. "Earth Attacks"

Social media flame wars to be illegal, says top Crown prosecutor

caradoc

Was this woman an advisor on Minority Report?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

Top telematics: Black box helps driver swerve speeding fine

caradoc

Re: TR6

How come you were doing 70 mph as you were leaving Newport Pagnel services? Ah, TR6

caradoc

Re: Interesting

"or a free better driver course" Free? They usually end up costing more than the fine and are used to blackmail acceptance of guilt so you don't get the points.

Exposed Volkswagen 'n' pals get 2 more YEARS to sort out emissions

caradoc

"Under normal driving conditions, the cars emitted up to 35 times more nitrogen oxides than permitted. Yes, this is very bad, but not from a public health or environmental standpoint. The emissions at issue are quite trivial in scale. VW’s real crime is that it gained an unfair advantage over competitors who complied with the rules.

That said, it is quite ironic that EPA is pointing the finger at VW for diesel emissions.

The EPA has for years quietly conducted flagrantly illegal scientific experiments in which diesel exhaust was pumped into the lungs of sick people and senior citizens. As pictured nearby, EPA researchers pumped high levels of diesel exhaust from an idling truck into a gas chamber where an unwitting elderly and/or asthmatic victim sat for two hours inhaling it."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/22/epas-own-diesel-crimes-worse-than-vws/

caradoc

Re: Speaking as someone who breathes air, better air quality can't come too soon.

"people have died as a result." You can prove that?

Human Rights Watch demands to know who's been snooping on it

caradoc

Re: Did anyone forget

Russia would quite likely be interested in HRW, as they get serious funding from George Soros, whose Open Society outfit got chucked out of Russia a few years ago.

Arctic ice returns to 1980s levels of cap cover

caradoc

Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

"reduce fossil fuel use, while promoting alternative fuels? What the hell is wrong with that?"

Well, clearly fossil fuels are not doing what is claimed for them, so why reduce the use of a cheap and efficient power source and alternative fuels are producing more problems for the environment than they are supposed to be solving.

"climate change is all a lie to promote gay marriage" Not as such, but they are both part of the "Progressive" agenda.

caradoc

Re: No, clear evidence that Al Gore is a lying little

I think anon coward may have had his tongue in his cheek, but I still agree totally with what you say.

Scientific consensus that 2014 was record hottest year? No

caradoc

"along with more acidic water from CO2, is distressing sea life." This is another hype to try and scare people. CO2 in the atmosphere indeed produces the weak carbonic acid in water, as it does in rainwater, but the oceans are NOT acidifiying.

IPCC WGI state that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

The claim that “ocean acidity” has increased by 30% since before the industrial revolution was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994, which shows a decrease in alkalinity of 0.1 pH unit, well within the range quoted by IPCC.

One of the authors of a prominent paper used by IPCC, sits on specialist panels on other bodies, such as the Royal Society, that come to the same conclusions. This is then presented in a manner to imply a consensus view from an apparently independent separate body.

caradoc

"last year was almost exactly as hot as 2005 and 2010"

2005 was a bit iffy anyway and probablty 2010 on the same basis. Check out Elusive Surface Air Temperature, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

In 2005, the UK Met Office was claiming the year as the "hottest on record", but with this caveat,

"All the temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The sizes of the uncertainties are such that the global average temperature for 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year in the record.

Similar analyses in the United States rank the year as warmest on record (GISS) and second warmest (NCDC). However, NCDC also note that uncertainties arising from sparse observations or measurement biases make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from the warmest year, 1998, as well as from other recent years such as 2002 and 2003."

James Hansen (NASA) thought 2005 was the hottest year ever.

“A surprising Arctic warm spell is responsible for a 2005 that was likely the warmest year since instrument recordings began in the late 1800s”, added Hansen, who nevertheless admitted that the analysis had to estimate temperatures in the Arctic from nearby weather stations because no direct data were available.

As a result, he said, “we couldn’t say with 100 percent certainty that it’s the warmest year, but I’m reasonably confident that it was”. Hansen and other researchers wrote in the analysis that “the inclusion of estimated Arctic temperatures is the primary reason for our rank of 2005 as the warmest year.” (Mercosur News Agency, 27/01/06).

I do like this settled science....

Antarctic ice at all time high: We have more to learn, says boffin

caradoc

Re: Antactica is melting too

Current temperature at Amundsen Scott S Pole station is minus 62deg C, although they are expecting a high today of minus 60C and the forecast for next Tuesday is for minus 44C. Wow, 16 deg warming in less than a week, global warming is happening, the Antarctic is melting.

Vostok is minus 56 today but is going to warm to minus 50C next week, lots of meltwater to come.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/weather.htm

French teen fined for illegal drone flight

caradoc

"In court, Thomas pleaded guilty to charges of unauthorised use of a drone and "endangering the lives of others"

I can think of a certain guy across the Atlantic who might be of interest to the French in this regard. But then again, maybe not......

You know all those resources we're about to run out of? No, we aren't

caradoc

Re: More top quality stuff from El Reg

Think of all the energy from the methan clathrates in the Arctic....

caradoc

Is Oil a Fossil Fuel?

Coal has been running out since at least 1789:

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156521/

"ONE of the earliest writers who conceived it was possible to exhaust our coal mines was John Williams, a mineral surveyor. In his "Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom," first published in 1789, he gave a chapter to the consideration of "The Limited Quantity of Coal of Britain."

Peak Oil should have been in 1970:

http://arcticcompass.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/peak-oil-scam.html

Meanwhile, it seems there are more oil discoveries almost every month, especially in the South Atlantic, which is why Argentina is making noises about the Falklands again.

Some depleted oil fields, just aren't,

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm

"a platform designated Eugene Island 330 began producing about 15,000 barrels of oil per day in the early 1970s. By 1989, the flow had dwindled to 4,000 barrels per day. Then, suddenly, production zoomed to 13,000 barrels. In addition, estimated reserves rocketed from 60 to 400 million barrels. Even more anomalous is the discovery that the geological age of today's oil is quite different from that recovered 10 years ago. What's going on under the Gulf of Mexico?

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the oil reservoir at Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself from "some continuous source miles below the earth's surface." In support of this surmise, analysis of seismic records revealed a deep fault which "was gushing oil like a garden hose."

The deep-seated oil source at Eugene Island strongly supports T. Gold's theory about The Deep Hot Biosphere. Gold holds:

"that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."

http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/

"Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'"

"New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply"

North Sea Oil is running out:

"Running on fumes"

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21597890-scottish-nationalists-are-right-charge-britain-has-mismanaged-north-sea-oil-unionists

Or is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2131258/North-Sea-oil-will-last-for-100-years.html

I suppose it depends whether you are English or Scottish...

http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_north_sea_oil.html

I QUIT: Mozilla's anti-gay-marriage Brendan Eich leaps out of door

caradoc

Re: It's a shame

"keep LGBT people from full equality and to deny our families equal rights under the law."

There already was full equality under the law, in terms of civil partnerships, it just so happens that men and women are biologically different and no amount of harassment of people who think marriage recognises that, will change biology.

Now, what a prejudiced nasty person I am, aren't I?

Organic food: Pricey, not particularly healthy, won't save you from cancer

caradoc

Re: Organic foods healthier? -- First, Let's Cut the Bullshit Over Chemicals.

Excellent post. Even dioxin isn't as toxic as claimed, at its worst it causes chloracne. Whilst it may cause cancer in specially bred cancer susceptible rats, at high doses, it has never been proven in humans, even after the Soweso disaster.

It always amuses me to hear the claims about chemicals in food and then to watch the massive global bonfire celebrations at New Year and other events:

Chemical and Environmental Research, 1996, Vol. 5 international Conference, Impact of Fireworks on our Environment:

"The burning of fireworks introduces huge amounts of toxic gases into the atmosphere, along with large quantities of particulate matter.

Metals like Magnesium, Aluminium and Iron are used in the manufacture of many fireworks, while nitrates and carbonates of some toxic metals like Barium, Strontium, Calcium and Copper are added to produce beautifully coloured fireworks.

Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulphur contained in those fireworks are ultimately converted into Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Nitrous oxides and Sulphur oxides, together with huge amounts of water vapour, and released into the atmosphere. The particulate matter, consisting of unburnt carbon particles and oxides of metal, is of different particle sizes.

The heavier ones are precipitated as dust and those with small sizes remain suspended in the atmosphere as an aerosol. The latter enter into the respiratory tract along with the gaseous pollutants causing emphysema and other pulmonary diseases.

The fine particles of so-called harmless metal oxides form a thin coating on the mucosa and impair their normal functioning. The heavier particles containing toxic heavy metals are mixed up with the soil and enter the food chain causing severe damage to both flora and fauna."

Let's ban fireworks, right?

caradoc

Organics

The only way to get the general public to eat a more expensive product, is to demonise intensively produced foodstuffs and this is what the Soil Association is all about.

"eating MORE fruit and veg is a healthier bet than forking out the extra for "organics""

It ain't necessarily so, check this article: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/five-a-day-the-truth/

"Why five-a-day? Why not? It’s a memorable number. It was never the outcome of evidence based, thoroughly researched, scientific investigation. It was a marketing campaign – and the most successful nutrition marketing campaign that the world has seen.

...the statement in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: “fruits and vegetables are excellent sources of vitamins” is not evidence based. A more accurate statement would be “low/zero-fat fruits are a good source of vitamin C and not much else; fruits with a fat content (avocado and olives) are poorer on vitamin C and better on other vitamins, but still no where near ‘excellent’; vegetables are often a better source of vitamin C than fruit and can also provide some useful fat soluble vitamins when eaten with fat.”

For a short and accurate statement, the guidelines should have said “animal products are unbeatable nutritionally”.

Climate change even worse than you thought: It causes war and murder

caradoc

Perhaps it's you who should have some better arguments:

"Global temperature stands to warm several degrees C due to human activity over coming centuries. That's the overwhelming evidence based view in the field"

Global temperature has been at a standstill since 1998, in spite of human activity, just as it declined from the 40's to the 70's, again in spite of human activity. There is no "evidence", such as you speak of, there are only computer models and much uncertain guesswork. They only achieve their "several degrees C" by using positive feedback relating to clouds and water vapour, where it has been shown that negative feedback is the more likely. There is plenty of real evidence from archaeological and paleological sources, that the climate has been warmer in the past, without the levels of CO2 we currently have.

The "view in the field" is the view of the same people who produce those constant computer outputs, desperate to try and deliver ever more scary scenarios and blame every weather event on the trace gas carbon dioxide, much beloved by the biosphere.

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

caradoc

Peak coal

The obvious question has to be, if emissions haven't fallen and annual CO2 returns from Mauna Loa continue to rise, why haven't temperatures risen? It has to be that the AGW theory is disproven. Please don't tell me that CO2 has caused colder weather, that is desperation in the face of a collpsed paradigm.

Taking the issue at hand, that of coal, in the 18th and 19th centuries there was genuine concern about Peak Coal, see here: The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines Author: William Stanley Jevons, First Published: 1865, http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_Coal_Question:_Opinions_of_Previous_Writers

"ONE of the earliest writers who conceived it was possible to exhaust our coal mines was John Williams, a mineral surveyor. In his "Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom," first published in 1789, he gave a chapter to the consideration of "The Limited Quantity of Coal of Britain."

There were also comments about wind power:

The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when and where and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear. Before the era of steam-engines; windmills were tried for draining mines; "but though they were powerful machines, they were very irregular, so that in a long tract of calm weather the mines were drowned, and all the workmen thrown idle.

The Peak Oil myth has been around since 1970 and earlier, yet there are new discoveries every year. With the addition of vast reserves of shale gas, there is no shortage of hydrocarbons. They will be used.

caradoc

Re: CO2 is not a pollutant

But we haven't got excess CO2......

Wind farms make you sick … with worry and envy

caradoc

Junk science is as Junk science does.

The real argument should be about why we are allowing agenda scientists to run our lives and dictate policy.

To denigrate those who protest is the lowest form of advocacy. This man is making a living out of junk science in his anti-smoking activities. For anyone actually interested in finding out facts for themselves, the second-hand smoke issue was built on dodgy science and even dodgier statistics. I don't smoke, I don't work for a tobacco company, I just believe that public policy should be based on sound evidence.

I can't comment on windfarm noise, but I do believe there is no rationale for windfarms, they destroy local environments, they survive only on heavy subsidies and do not ever provide anywhere near the claimed "electricity for xyz number of homes" in the statements by developers. They only exist because of the increasingly failing claims for man-made global warming from fossil fuel energy use.

UK climate expert warns of 3-5 degree warmer world by 2100

caradoc

Watson to Planet Earth

Bob Watson has been spouting this stuff for years.

When asked in 1997 at Kyoto, as the new IPCC Chairman, about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, he responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. "The science is settled" he said, and "we're not going to reopen it here."

He worked for Al Gore in the Clinton White House as "Director of Mission to Planet Earth" and Gore calls him his "hero of the planet". He became Defra Chief Scientific Advisor and Director of Strategy at the propagandist Tyndall Centre in July 2007, not long after Al Gore was announced as an Advisor on Climate Change to Gordon Brown and he had been in the UK presenting his "Inconvenient Truth" film.

Within months of his new roles, he was already pushing the "4 degrees to disaster" story which he resurrects at regular intervals, as here: "The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government's chief scientific advisers." Guardian, Aug 7th, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019