Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Jurisdiction 101 (Score 1) 370

by Pino Grigio (#47728553) Attached to: UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime
I suppose it could be argued under existing anti-terrorism legislation, but then accidentally driving in a bus lane could be interpreted in that way too under these illiberal laws.

The point is though, that anyone who wanted to share or view this footage should be sectioned and locked away in a psychiatric hospital regardless.

Comment: Re:Does it really matter ? (Score 1) 365

by Pino Grigio (#47728277) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.

Comment: Re:Makes sense I guess. (Score 1) 177

by Pino Grigio (#47724051) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells
I think that's just to do with the fact that in the past men worked themselves into an early grave and had to retire later. I think I read somewhere recently that the difference between male and female life expectancy, in the West at least, is slowly converging to approximately the same value.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 172

I've not made that claim, no. The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, that 97% of scientists disagree with me but that's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.

That last bit should concentrate your rather limited mind.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 172

For example, Andrew Montford. Someone with scientific training. Certainly not a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic.

Also what the fuck is wrong with your brain? No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory. If you don't understand science and how it works, why do you even have an opinion on this?

Totally bizarre.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 172

that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different

But that isn't what sceptics are saying, is it. Nice try with the good old straw man argument, which never fails a climate alarmist in need of a bullshit sentence on a website.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1, Troll) 172

A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud

Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions. I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.

The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge. I can think of a few sceptics who get published, such as Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, but they are a few out of thousands of researchers on the AGW gravy train, whose careers, tenure and professorships are directly linked to their ability to suck research funds out of government for their institutions.

What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.

Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it? Can you not spot a very small (i.e. the size of Jupiter) hole in the process, right there? Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.

Comment: Re:Durrrr. (Score 2) 172

Actually I wasn't referring to scientists and their private incomes, although they have mortgages like everybody else. I'm mostly referring to the main method of career progression in academia which involves attracting government money to your institution. The better you are at doing this, the more likely you are to get tenure or a professorship. If you work in academia you have to play this game.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 0) 172

We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory

Do "denialists" have a theory? Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published? I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

How many weeks are there in a light year?