Posts by Graham Dawson

Re: However, the deniers will soon be along to point out ...

Actually us global warming "deniers" are more likely to point out that there are a number of falsifications of AGW out there already, such as the lack of stratospheric cooling, the lack of tropospheric hotspot, the fact that CO2 and temperature don't correlate over significant timescales, the fact that the models can't hindcast (they are tuned to roughly correlate with the late 20th century and are incapable of producing anything that resembles historic temperatures), the fact that most all the models miss at least one of the major warming and cooling events of the 20th century (To hide this they use an ensemble mean, which is pointless; averaging a bunch of wrong answers doesn't magically produce a right answer) don't account for clouds, don't account for changes in TSI, don't properly model dust and are generally useless as a result, and the fact that this "prediction" is essentially just a straight line over a thirty year period.

And this is before we get into the serious doubts over the temperature data and repeated, documented adjustments that lower the temperatures in the past to make the present look warmer.

Re: Warning: agenda at work

"There's overwhelming evidence to prove that it's a simple statement of fact. "

No, there isn't. There's a great deal of circumstantial evidence but there's also a great deal of question over how accurate and reliable that evidence is, especially given the repeated "adjustments" of historical temperature records that nearly always reduce temperatures in the past, and the reliance on a very small number of proxies that have been shown to have significant error margins and biases in the collection method, amongst other issues. In addition the current warming trend is neither unusual nor particularly significant in historical terms - even within the instrument record - and falls well within the bounds of natural variability.

The entire AGW concept is based on the idea of "forcings" reaching a tipping point. Given that temperatures have been higher in the past (or were until the temperature records were fiddled to show otherwise), and CO2 levels have been much higher without any tipping point being reached, and given that we are still here despite these much warmer and much higher CO2 epochs, I would suyrmise that the current paranoia about a fractional increase in CO2 levels is just so much hokum. That leaves only political reasons for its persistence.

You have to admit, it does offer a great way to raise more revenue.

Re: Warning: agenda at work

A page which quotes or paraphrases AR4 and its summary for policy makers. In fact the quote you picked is directly referenced as coming from the AR4 summary for policy makers.

So it's political. Stop pretending it isn't.

Re: Wildlife?

You'd definitely think so if you met my nephew. He's a complete monkey.

Sentence fragment;

Consider revising.

Re: Because he is a narcissistic asshole

He's Finnish. It goes with the territory.

Re: Because...

Apply the Vetinari Solution, vis: take your incredibly smart person, find out their favourite hobby and lock them in a light, airy room with unlimited supplies, then ask them to make the codes in their spare time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

The argument in the states is over whether the police could get a warrant for encryption keys. Your assumption seems to be that they must be allowed to get that warrant regardless of prior evidence and regardless of any legal protections that prevent the police from fishing for evidence. The judge said that the police couldn't get a warrant for the man's encryption keys because they had no reasonable suspicion; as a result, they would be forcing a breach of the fifth amendment in the same way that they would by forcing him to speak to them.

Similar, lesser protections did exist here until RIPA and its related laws came along. The police had to have reasonable suspicion and they had to convince a judge before they could get a warrant. They couldn't just say "we think we can find evidence". They had to prove it.

You're claiming that I was disputing this, when I was not: your position has been consistently that it's justifiably illegal to withhold encryption keys FULL STOP, that the fact that it's illegal to refuse to hand over encryption keys is a good thing in itself. The issue of warrants only came up when your earlier argument was revealed to be a pile of shite.

You argued that it's right that the police have uncontested right of access to encryption keys and that the law as it stands was good. I and others showed you that it was an unjust law in its intent. You then argued that you disagreed with RIPA in its current form and that the police should have warrant powers to get access to encryption keys. I showed you that they already had those powers prior to RIPA. Your argument now seems to be that I was arguing against the concept of warrants, which I was not and never have. I was arguing against your original contention that the police should be able to compel me to hand over encryption keys purely on their say so. You keep contradicting yourself.

And now you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I would have trouble getting them past your foot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

The police could already get your encryption password with a warrant you blithering idiot. They had to have reasonable suspicion that it would provide them with firm evidence of a crime and they had to convince a judge that their suspicion was reasonable and not just a fishing expedition. Faced with that warrant you would then have to either hand over the keys or be held in contempt of court.

What you keep defending, however much you claim otherwise, is warrantless seizure of private property without anything other than vague belief that it might provide evidence.

Re: Re: What the floorumdrick?

The problem is the support for that principle itself. It's the equivalent of being forced to allow the police into our home at any time of day or night and it's been a principle of English law (can't speak for Scottish law) that the police or whichever authority happens to be around can't simply enter your property without your explicit permission unless they have a warrant from a judge.

The "principle" you support leads inevitably to travesties like RIPA *by its nature*, as it overrides a fundamental aspect of the common law.

Re: American way of thinking

English born and bred (okay, slightly Irish, but don't hold it against me guv!) and I down voted every single one of your idiocies.

But I may be on the edge of a bell curve so that doesn't prove anything. :)

Re: @Graham Dawson

Must be great having to live in a black and white world where you never have to make any compromises to survive.

Re: Re: Re: Why do they always side with the accused?

The three fifths compromise was made up to prevent the slaver states from using their large slave populations to gain more power in congress. Read your damn history.

Re: Re: Twat factor

Being a self-made success who overcame great personal obstacles doe.n't preclude his being a twat.