Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Citation please (Score 3, Interesting) 287

The only people claiming the carbon tax wasn't working were Coalition politicians (and their apologists), and the companies who didn't want to have to cover the external costs of their businesses. Fact is, it was starting to work quite well, despite the damping effect of Abbott attacking it with all the FUD he could muster.

And now we have economists scratching their heads as to why a conservative government would attack a market-based climate solution while favouring a big direct-action spending program instead:

Roger Jones, a Research Fellow at the Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, called the repeal "the perfect storm of stupidity".

"It's hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making," he said.

"A complete disregard of the science of climate change and its impacts. Bad economics and mistrust of market forces."

Comment: Re:Fanbois (Score 4, Insightful) 91

by Namarrgon (#47471567) Attached to: Apple Agrees To $450 Million Ebook Antitrust Settlement

Sadly for you, the "facts" are on Amazon's side here. Apple was being legally outcompeted, and resorting to illegal collusion needs to be smacked down, regardless of how much they hated seeing their potential marketshare slipping away. Maybe they should have tried to compete by lowering prices further, rather than raising them? Would be a better outcome for consumers.

Comment: Re:WUWT (Score 2) 441

While 35% is definitely possible, I think it's probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that.

It's not clear where your claim comes from either. It's not like you can just say, "I think [35% is] probably above average. I doubt that most wind farms achieve that."

Googling it, average wind farm capacity factor seem to be around 27-40%, depending on turbine, location etc. Newer model turbines like the GE 1.6-100 claim over 50% CF thanks to design improvements.

Comment: Re:not a record (Score 2) 547

Nope. There are still a number of "skeptics" claiming that the earth is not warming, and most scientists believe we can still avoid the worst of the warming yet to come (though some significant warming is now inevitable). Also, most economic studies of climate impact & mitigation (e.g. the Stern Review) have concluded that it will be much cheaper to mitigate CO2 emissions ASAP and avoid the costs of adaption.

Comment: Citation please (Score 3, Informative) 547

Depends which temperature proxy you look at, but on average, nope.

Of course there may have been warmer days in the "recent" past, but we have no records of that, so the article's claim stands. And your claim requires ignoring most of the various proxy reconstructions that have been done, so it doesn't hold up either.

Comment: Single-tile too (Score 2) 186

by Namarrgon (#47259557) Attached to: 4K Monitors: Not Now, But Soon

The other nice thing about the Samsung UD590, apart from 4K @ 60Hz, is that it presents itself as a single 4K monitor, rather than two half-size monitors tiled next to each other. That can make a big difference to some uses, like running games at lower resolutions. The Asus PB287Q is another such single-tile 4K monitor.

Comment: Re: Queue the deniers (Score 2) 387

by Namarrgon (#47211545) Attached to: Geothermal Heat Contributing To West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting

It doesn't mean, "the science is complete".

It does mean that the results so far show with confidence that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. This conclusion is deemed strong enough to act on.

There is still much more work to be done on nailing down mechanisms, reducing error bars etc, but none of this is likely to change the above conclusion. That would require both strong new evidence and a counter-explanation for all the results so far.

Comment: Re: He also forgot to mention... (Score 5, Insightful) 343

by Namarrgon (#47139073) Attached to: Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot

The point is that, in both cases, the sender/content provider has already paid. If there's an additional cost to transmitting the content across a boundary (different country or different peering service), then in both cases that has already been factored into the cost of sending it, and paid to the local provider (post office or ISP).

By Comcast's reasoning, the parcel sender should also expect a bill from any countries the parcel travels through, despite paying the full postage when sending. If Comcast wants more money for transmitting content, they need to take it up with their neighbour peering providers, not with the content producers or consumers.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...